If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Supreme Court will consider whether abortion patients have too much privacy   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 136
    More: Asinine, abortions  
•       •       •

2539 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2013 at 2:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



136 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-24 01:36:53 PM
They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.
 
2013-06-24 01:42:14 PM
I'm not really sure how this is unconstitutional.
 
2013-06-24 01:44:29 PM
The justices on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from abortion opponents, who wanted the law thrown out. The law allows individuals to enter the buffer zone only to enter or leave the clinic or reach a destination other than the clinic.

Abortion opponents who regularly stand outside clinics in Boston, Worcester and Springfield claimed the law unfairly keeps them from physically assaulting patients, shouting in their faces, spitting on them, or slapping them. Opponents also said that it interferes with their ability to shoot patients or set off bombs to kill them, as greater accuracy or firepower is required, and that the law is therefore unconstitutional under the second amendment.
 
2013-06-24 01:46:08 PM

DamnYankees: I'm not really sure how this is unconstitutional.


The argument that is being made is that it is the first amendment right of abortion protestors to make their message heard directly outside of the clinic. If I were arguing the case, I would point out that it is designed to protect one specific form of patient, and is therefore politically motivated to limit a specific kind of speech.
 
2013-06-24 01:50:38 PM

WhoIsWillo: The argument that is being made is that it is the first amendment right of abortion protestors to make their message heard directly outside of the clinic.


I understand you don't necessarily believe this argument, but it is absurd. Freedom of speech does not imply freedom to be heard. They can say whatever they want, they can't force anyone else to listen.
 
2013-06-24 01:51:09 PM
Abortion opponents who regularly stand outside clinics in Boston, Worcester and Springfield claimed the law unfairly keeps them from engaging patients in conversations at a closer distance.


Someone want to point me to the section of the First Ammendment that states you have the right to force someone to engage in a conversation with you?
 
2013-06-24 01:52:19 PM

WhoIsWillo: DamnYankees: I'm not really sure how this is unconstitutional.

The argument that is being made is that it is the first amendment right of abortion protestors to make their message heard directly outside of the clinic. If I were arguing the case, I would point out that it is designed to protect one specific form of patient, and is therefore politically motivated to limit a specific kind of speech.


Yup.  Basically the same issue as Madsen v. Women's Health Center (2004), which upheld a 36-foot buffer while striking down a 300-foot buffer.  The vote on the 36-foot buffer was 6-3, with Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy in dissent.  Not hard to imagine that Alito and Roberts may join those three, and the fact that the Court even took the case (where the lower court was aligned with the SCOTUS decision from less than 20 years ago) may suggest that at least one of them already has.
 
2013-06-24 01:53:10 PM

El_Perro: WhoIsWillo: DamnYankees: I'm not really sure how this is unconstitutional.

The argument that is being made is that it is the first amendment right of abortion protestors to make their message heard directly outside of the clinic. If I were arguing the case, I would point out that it is designed to protect one specific form of patient, and is therefore politically motivated to limit a specific kind of speech.

Yup.  Basically the same issue as Madsen v. Women's Health Center (2004 1994), which upheld a 36-foot buffer while striking down a 300-foot buffer.  The vote on the 36-foot buffer was 6-3, with Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy in dissent.  Not hard to imagine that Alito and Roberts may join those three, and the fact that the Court even took the case (where the lower court was aligned with the SCOTUS decision from less than 20 years ago) may suggest that at least one of them already has.

 
2013-06-24 01:57:12 PM

El_Perro: WhoIsWillo: DamnYankees: I'm not really sure how this is unconstitutional.

The argument that is being made is that it is the first amendment right of abortion protestors to make their message heard directly outside of the clinic. If I were arguing the case, I would point out that it is designed to protect one specific form of patient, and is therefore politically motivated to limit a specific kind of speech.

Yup.  Basically the same issue as Madsen v. Women's Health Center (2004), which upheld a 36-foot buffer while striking down a 300-foot buffer.  The vote on the 36-foot buffer was 6-3, with Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy in dissent.  Not hard to imagine that Alito and Roberts may join those three, and the fact that the Court even took the case (where the lower court was aligned with the SCOTUS decision from less than 20 years ago) may suggest that at least one of them already has.


Interesting.
 
2013-06-24 02:02:42 PM

El_Perro: Yup.  Basically the same issue as Madsen v. Women's Health Center (2004), which upheld a 36-foot buffer while striking down a 300-foot buffer.  The vote on the 36-foot buffer was 6-3, with Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy in dissent.  Not hard to imagine that Alito and Roberts may join those three, and the fact that the Court even took the case (where the lower court was aligned with the SCOTUS decision from less than 20 years ago) may suggest that at least one of them already has.


I'm too lazy to read the decision in that case right now, but what was their rationale? I understand the concept of "free speech zones" is anathema to some, but zoning laws don't let you sell your constitutionally protected porn within 500 yards of schools, or put up election signs within 100 yards of a polling place, so what's the problem with saying "yeah, you can say what you want, just not within 100 yards of their door?"

P.S. - in case it wasn't clear, I made up those numbers, so don't yell at me for being wrong.
 
2013-06-24 02:03:08 PM
Meh, people have a right to privacy for health care under HIPAA, and in a way, (in my own opinion and it's only my opinion) those protesters are violating peoples right of health care privacy.
 
2013-06-24 02:11:25 PM

nmrsnr: El_Perro: Yup.  Basically the same issue as Madsen v. Women's Health Center (2004), which upheld a 36-foot buffer while striking down a 300-foot buffer.  The vote on the 36-foot buffer was 6-3, with Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy in dissent.  Not hard to imagine that Alito and Roberts may join those three, and the fact that the Court even took the case (where the lower court was aligned with the SCOTUS decision from less than 20 years ago) may suggest that at least one of them already has.

I'm too lazy to read the decision in that case right now, but what was their rationale? I understand the concept of "free speech zones" is anathema to some, but zoning laws don't let you sell your constitutionally protected porn within 500 yards of schools, or put up election signs within 100 yards of a polling place, so what's the problem with saying "yeah, you can say what you want, just not within 100 yards of their door?"


The distance was bigger than needed. The state's interest is in protecting the physical safety of patients, not in protecting them from hearing someone call them a dirty whore babykiller. 300 feet would make it tough to insult someone without significant amplification, while 35 feet is fine to keep you safely out of spitting range.

But as El Perro notes, they took this case because apparently enough of the court now thinks that patients should get assaulted.
 
2013-06-24 02:11:58 PM

nmrsnr: El_Perro: Yup.  Basically the same issue as Madsen v. Women's Health Center (2004), which upheld a 36-foot buffer while striking down a 300-foot buffer.  The vote on the 36-foot buffer was 6-3, with Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy in dissent.  Not hard to imagine that Alito and Roberts may join those three, and the fact that the Court even took the case (where the lower court was aligned with the SCOTUS decision from less than 20 years ago) may suggest that at least one of them already has.

I'm too lazy to read the decision in that case right now, but what was their rationale? I understand the concept of "free speech zones" is anathema to some, but zoning laws don't let you sell your constitutionally protected porn within 500 yards of schools, or put up election signs within 100 yards of a polling place, so what's the problem with saying "yeah, you can say what you want, just not within 100 yards of their door?"

P.S. - in case it wasn't clear, I made up those numbers, so don't yell at me for being wrong.



I haven't read the case in a while (and am too lazy to pull it up now), but it was based on a line of cases that allows for the imposition of "time, place and manner" limitations on speech, so long as the restrictions are content neutral, serve a significant government interest (could be wrong about the "significant" wording), are narrowly-tailored to serve that interest, and leave open other means of communication.  It's a pretty flexible standard, so different distance requirements may be OK or not OK depending on the context.  (also, things like pornography are often not protected by the First Amendment in any event)

I don't think there's anything wrong with the rule, and I think it's consistent with current caselaw.  The dissenters in Madsen thought the 36-foot rule didn't meet the time/place/manner standard, as they thought it was overly broad and not content-neutral (since, practically, the only people affected were anti-abortion protesters).
 
2013-06-24 02:15:19 PM
You have no first amendment right to engage anyone in conversation, you have no first amendment right to bully or harass.

Massachusetts doesn't have this law for fun, they have it because one of these "right to life" second amendment warriors murdered two receptionists in Brookline.
 
2013-06-24 02:16:25 PM
Well, look on the bright side. If one of these protestors assaults a patient on their way into the place, you know what that means?

Free abortion!
 
2013-06-24 02:17:40 PM
SCOTUSblog has a post about this case here.   I had forgotten about Hill v. Colorado, which upheld a law that prohibited protesters from coming within 8 feet of a person entering a clinic (within 100 feet of the clinic).  Also 6-3, also with Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy in dissent.
 
2013-06-24 02:19:04 PM
If the town can set up a 500 foot no stripper zone around churches and schools, it surely can set up a 35 foot no idiot zone around abortion clinics.

The strippers are even hidden from view inside a building in all, while the idiots are right out in the open.  I don't want my kids exposed to that kind of hate.  Think of the children.
 
2013-06-24 02:23:55 PM

what_now: Massachusetts doesn't have this law for fun, they have it because one of these "right to life" second amendment warriors murdered two receptionists in Brookline.


To be fair, a "no trespassing" sign won't stop someone who's intent on murdering people, so while that might have been the impetus for the law, it's not a particularly good reason to keep it. Not letting assholes harass emotionally vulnerable people is, though.

Theaetetus:
El_Perro:


Thanks.
 
2013-06-24 02:27:58 PM

DamnYankees: I'm not really sure how this is unconstitutional.


Because Christianity is oppressed, didn't you know that?
 
2013-06-24 02:31:13 PM

Aarontology: Well, look on the bright side. If one of these protestors assaults a patient on their way into the place, you know what that means?

Free abortion!


OMG I hate you for cracking me up like that!
 
2013-06-24 02:39:37 PM
Isn't this the same rationale they use for "free speech zones" all over the place?
 
2013-06-24 02:43:38 PM

Lsherm: Isn't this the same rationale they use for "free speech zones" all over the place?


To protect groups routinely targeted for long term harassment and violence from crazy people?  How's that?
 
2013-06-24 02:47:45 PM
They can practice free speech all they want - in organized protests that do not threaten individuals receiving constitutionally-allowed medical care.
 
2013-06-24 02:47:47 PM
What conversation? People who are not the pregnant woman in question and her doctor are not part of the conversation if she does not want them to be. End of story.
 
2013-06-24 02:47:47 PM
If the 100 foot electioneering buffer zone is constitutional (that's the limit in Maryland, not sure about Massachusetts), then surely this 35 foot buffer zone is also constitutional. 35 feet is still within shouting distance, that's good enough.
 
2013-06-24 02:48:49 PM
but protesters aren't allowed to stand outside the SCOTUS doors and scream at the justices as they enter and leave are they?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/supreme-court-issues-n ew -rule-barring-protests-on-plaza/?_r=0
 
2013-06-24 02:50:02 PM
I'm not normally a fan of Stand Your Ground laws, but what a delightful irony it would be if a person with a concealed weapon came out of a clinic, started feeling threatened, and blew all the protesters away.  Watch the right-wing pundit heads assplode with confusion.
 
2013-06-24 02:51:12 PM
So they're basically saying they have a constitutional right to harass people and get up in their face?
 
2013-06-24 02:51:37 PM

nmrsnr: El_Perro: Yup.  Basically the same issue as Madsen v. Women's Health Center (2004), which upheld a 36-foot buffer while striking down a 300-foot buffer.  The vote on the 36-foot buffer was 6-3, with Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy in dissent.  Not hard to imagine that Alito and Roberts may join those three, and the fact that the Court even took the case (where the lower court was aligned with the SCOTUS decision from less than 20 years ago) may suggest that at least one of them already has.

I'm too lazy to read the decision in that case right now, but what was their rationale? I understand the concept of "free speech zones" is anathema to some, but zoning laws don't let you sell your constitutionally protected porn within 500 yards of schools, or put up election signs within 100 yards of a polling place, so what's the problem with saying "yeah, you can say what you want, just not within 100 yards of their door?"

P.S. - in case it wasn't clear, I made up those numbers, so don't yell at me for being wrong.


Because Jesus hath decreed abortions to be illegal.
 
2013-06-24 02:52:48 PM

what_now: You have no first amendment right to engage anyone in conversation, you have no first amendment right to bully or harass.

Massachusetts doesn't have this law for fun, they have it because one of these "right to life" second amendment warriors murdered two receptionists in Brookline.


This. The law has nothing to do with stifling the right to protest, and everything to do with keeping religious extremists from assaulting and killing people. 35 feet is plenty close enough to wave huge placards of aborted fetuses and scream Bible quotes & epithets at people either doing their jobs or getting help.
 
2013-06-24 02:53:38 PM
The Planned Parenthood on Commonwealth Ave is basically on BU's Campus. I can't tell you how many times I walked down the street trying to get to class, and had some asshat yell at me about my baby.
 
2013-06-24 02:53:57 PM
Question: Are abortion clinics privately owned and operated?
 
2013-06-24 02:55:31 PM

basemetal: Meh, people have a right to privacy for health care under HIPAA, and in a way, (in my own opinion and it's only my opinion) those protesters are violating peoples right of health care privacy.


This is what I was thinking.
 
2013-06-24 02:55:35 PM
 
2013-06-24 02:56:38 PM
There's a PP in Davis Square that does consultations and prescriptions. No abortions, no exams, just a place for women to get information, a hand full of condoms, and fill a script.

When it opened, I was walking down the street to the burrito joint and some lady got in my face about the "abortion mill" that had just opened. I calmly explained to her that this location didn't do any exams or procedures and she hissed "JESUS CAN SEE YOU!!!1".

I still don't know what she meant by that. Was Jesus angry that I was searching for a delicious burrito? In my defense, the falafel place wasn't opened yet.
 
2013-06-24 02:56:42 PM
I get in trouble with both sides on this.

Freedom of speech is that you can say something to someone else without government interference. You can't do it anywhere, like you can't break into someone's house to tell them something and say it was protected for freedom of speech, nor do you have a right to force it on others, or to interfere in what they are doing.

This is not restricting what someone can say. Just making it so they can't interfere with others going about their business.
 
2013-06-24 02:57:31 PM

DamnYankees: I'm not really sure how this is unconstitutional.


Consider Snyder v. Phelps.  SCOTUS not only stated that the Westboro Baptist Church has a right to spew hatred (sure why not), they stated they have a right to do it at a funeral.  I think that's unreasonable, but this is a similar case.  If "free speech" means you can harass others with it, then I'd say these buffer laws are going down.
 
2013-06-24 02:57:37 PM
No, the Supreme Court will consider whether it's possible for an opinion to be so reprehensible you can legislate where it's ok to express it.

/ pro-abortion, but we don't need "free-speech zones" to spread to surround private buildings too--public is bad enough.
 
2013-06-24 03:00:20 PM

DarnoKonrad: DamnYankees: I'm not really sure how this is unconstitutional.

Consider Snyder v. Phelps.  SCOTUS not only stated that the Westboro Baptist Church has a right to spew hatred (sure why not), they stated they have a right to do it at a funeral.  I think that's unreasonable, but this is a similar case.  If "free speech" means you can harass others with it, then I'd say these buffer laws are going down.


IIRC, SCOTUS ruled that they can protest, but they can't be in the cemetery itself if the cemetery didn't let them in, nor could they prohibit the business of the cemetery- they can't stand in front of the hearse or the people trying to get in.

  The same thing would apply here I assume.
 
2013-06-24 03:00:38 PM

efgeise: Question: Are abortion clinics privately owned and operated?


Answer: this is irrelevant, because the issue here is regarding protests on public sidewalks and streets. If abortion clinics all had giant lawns and fences and private access ways, this wouldn't be an issue*.

*Of course it would, they'd be clustered around the gate and block cars from entering
 
2013-06-24 03:00:54 PM

what_now: The Planned Parenthood on Commonwealth Ave is basically on BU's Campus. I can't tell you how many times I walked down the street trying to get to class, and had some asshat yell at me about my baby.


You should totally troll those people with dozens of fake baby bumps walking in and not coming out to smiles and high fives.  Issue little punch cards where you get a free abortion after your first 5.
 
2013-06-24 03:01:21 PM

Hobodeluxe: but protesters aren't allowed to stand outside the SCOTUS doors and scream at the justices as they enter and leave are they?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/supreme-court-issues-n ew -rule-barring-protests-on-plaza/?_r=0


Yes that would be very hypocritical then.
 
2013-06-24 03:01:46 PM
FTFA:

Abortion opponents who regularly stand outside clinics in Boston, Worcester and Springfield claimed the law unfairly keeps them from engaging patients in conversations at a closer distance.

So by this logic, is it unfair that the protestors don't get to have a kiosk inside the clinic for engaging patients.
 
2013-06-24 03:01:57 PM

what_now: DarnoKonrad: DamnYankees: I'm not really sure how this is unconstitutional.

Consider Snyder v. Phelps.  SCOTUS not only stated that the Westboro Baptist Church has a right to spew hatred (sure why not), they stated they have a right to do it at a funeral.  I think that's unreasonable, but this is a similar case.  If "free speech" means you can harass others with it, then I'd say these buffer laws are going down.

IIRC, SCOTUS ruled that they can protest, but they can't be in the cemetery itself if the cemetery didn't let them in, nor could they prohibit the business of the cemetery- they can't stand in front of the hearse or the people trying to get in.

  The same thing would apply here I assume.



depends on how close the public sidewalk is.
 
2013-06-24 03:02:29 PM

DarnoKonrad: DamnYankees: I'm not really sure how this is unconstitutional.

Consider Snyder v. Phelps.  SCOTUS not only stated that the Westboro Baptist Church has a right to spew hatred (sure why not), they stated they have a right to do it at a funeral.  I think that's unreasonable, but this is a similar case.  If "free speech" means you can harass others with it, then I'd say these buffer laws are going down.


The court's opinion also stated that the memorial service was not disturbed, saying, "Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself."

I'd bet they were at least 35 feet away.
 
2013-06-24 03:02:41 PM
Hurray for strict scrutiny!
 
2013-06-24 03:02:49 PM
Abortion opponents who regularly stand outside clinics in Boston, Worcester and Springfield claimed the law unfairly keeps them from engaging patients in conversations at a closer distance.

Sorry guys, your Freedom of Speech isn't being infringed. You aren't able to talk when they still have to pass youfrom 35 feet? They still have to walk past you jackalopes.
 
2013-06-24 03:05:28 PM
"Abortion opponents who regularly stand outside clinics in Boston, Worcester and Springfield claimed the law unfairly keeps them from engaging patients in conversations at a closer distance. "

Should we bring the argument to your home instead?
 
2013-06-24 03:06:58 PM

coeyagi: I'm not normally a fan of Stand Your Ground laws, but what a delightful irony it would be if a person with a concealed weapon came out of a clinic, started feeling threatened, and blew all the protesters away.  Watch the right-wing pundit heads assplode with confusion.


I'm glad I read through the thread first because I was going to post roughly the same thing.

Protestor: "We're pro-life...... AND WE WILL KILL YOUR ASS!!!!"

*BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM*

Clinic patient:  "Standing my ground, biiiiii-YOTCH!"
 
2013-06-24 03:08:11 PM
I never got any flak when I went for mine, but my stepdad about knocked someone out when he took my mother in. The guy kept getting in my mother's way, and said, "I thought whores spent all their time on their backs." This was early 00s, Los Angeles, so I can't imagine what women go through in less progressive parts of the country.

You have the right to say whatever you want, but not wherever you want, just like you can scream "Fire!" but not in a movie theatre.
 
2013-06-24 03:08:27 PM

Theaetetus: DarnoKonrad: DamnYankees: I'm not really sure how this is unconstitutional.

Consider Snyder v. Phelps.  SCOTUS not only stated that the Westboro Baptist Church has a right to spew hatred (sure why not), they stated they have a right to do it at a funeral.  I think that's unreasonable, but this is a similar case.  If "free speech" means you can harass others with it, then I'd say these buffer laws are going down.

The court's opinion also stated that the memorial service was not disturbed, saying, "Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself."

I'd bet they were at least 35 feet away.


Right if they are not directly interfering that's different. These protestors are another story, they want to directly interfere.
 
2013-06-24 03:09:10 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.


Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.
 
2013-06-24 03:09:11 PM

DarnoKonrad: what_now: DarnoKonrad: DamnYankees: I'm not really sure how this is unconstitutional.

Consider Snyder v. Phelps.  SCOTUS not only stated that the Westboro Baptist Church has a right to spew hatred (sure why not), they stated they have a right to do it at a funeral.  I think that's unreasonable, but this is a similar case.  If "free speech" means you can harass others with it, then I'd say these buffer laws are going down.

IIRC, SCOTUS ruled that they can protest, but they can't be in the cemetery itself if the cemetery didn't let them in, nor could they prohibit the business of the cemetery- they can't stand in front of the hearse or the people trying to get in.

  The same thing would apply here I assume.


depends on how close the public sidewalk is.


The glass front building is the PP. The tall building in the background is a BU dorm.

http://pics3.city-data.com/businesses/p/0/8/0/0/5320800.JPG

This old lady is there ALL THE DAMN TIME, annoying everyone.
 

mrieders.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-06-24 03:11:47 PM

tbeatty: The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.


You're pretty stupid.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Link

January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness[36] rammed an SUV into the front entrance of a [37]January 1, 2012 Bobby Joe Rogers, 41, firebombed the [38]April 1, 2012 A bomb exploded on the windowsill of a Planned Parenthood clinic in <a data-cke-saved-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Chute,_Wiscons in" title="Grand Chute, Wisconsin">Grand Chute, Wisconsin, resulting in a fire that damaged one of the clinic's examination rooms. No injuries were reported.April 11, 2013 A Planned Parenthood clinic in [39]
 
2013-06-24 03:13:32 PM

tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.


Isn't it a bit early to be hitting the crack pipe?
 
2013-06-24 03:15:18 PM

what_now: This old lady is there ALL THE DAMN TIME, annoying everyone.


She's not old, she's clearly in her late 20s or early 30s. And while some babies are annoying, those two seem to be fast asleep.
 
2013-06-24 03:15:27 PM

what_now: This old lady is there ALL THE DAMN TIME, annoying everyone.


I hope the young woman is telling the lady that she's on her way to get the kid in the stroller aborted.
 
2013-06-24 03:17:00 PM

tbeatty: Wow. Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.


the 80's?


March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.

July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility, the Ladies Center, in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003. The clinic in Pensacola had been bombed before in 1984 and was also bombed subsequently in 2012.

December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.

January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.

October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death with a high-powered rifle at his home in Amherst, New York.[10] His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.

May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at church in Wichita, Kansas.[11] Attempted murder, assault, and kidnapping According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.[12] Attempted murders in the U.S. included:[8][13][14]

August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence (20 years were later added for arson and acid attacks on clinics).

July 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.

December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.

October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York was injured by flying glass when a shot was fired through the window of his home.[15]

January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured, and lost an eye, in the bombing which also killed Robert Sanderson.

May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.[21]

October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.[22]

May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved.[23][24][25] This was the second arson at the clinic.[26]

September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building, who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.[27]

June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in $6,000 in damages.[22][28]

July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.[22]

December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a "memorial lamp" for an abortion she had had there.[29]

September 11, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan, crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions; however, Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.[30] Time magazine listed the incident in a "Top 10 Inept Terrorist Plots" list.[31]

April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas, contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.[32]

May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[33]

December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Baca's girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.[34][35]

January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness[36] rammed an SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.[37]

January 1, 2012 Bobby Joe Rogers, 41, firebombed the American Family Planning Clinic in Pensacola, Florida with a Molotov cocktail; the fire gutted the building. Rogers told investigators that he was motivated to commit the crime by his opposition to abortion, and that what more directly prompted the act was seeing a patient enter the clinic during one of the frequent anti-abortion protests there. The clinic had previously been bombed at Christmas in 1984 and was the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994.[38]

April 1, 2012 A bomb exploded on the windowsill of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, resulting in a fire that damaged one of the clinic's examination rooms. No injuries were reported.

April 11, 2013 A Planned Parenthood clinic in Bloomington, Indiana was vandalized with an axe.[39]

November 2001: After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics. On December 3, 2003, Waagner was convicted of 51 charges relating to the anthrax scare.



Yeah if you ignore all those.
 
2013-06-24 03:17:43 PM

what_now: DarnoKonrad: what_now: DarnoKonrad: DamnYankees: I'm not really sure how this is unconstitutional.

Consider Snyder v. Phelps.  SCOTUS not only stated that the Westboro Baptist Church has a right to spew hatred (sure why not), they stated they have a right to do it at a funeral.  I think that's unreasonable, but this is a similar case.  If "free speech" means you can harass others with it, then I'd say these buffer laws are going down.

IIRC, SCOTUS ruled that they can protest, but they can't be in the cemetery itself if the cemetery didn't let them in, nor could they prohibit the business of the cemetery- they can't stand in front of the hearse or the people trying to get in.

  The same thing would apply here I assume.


depends on how close the public sidewalk is.

The glass front building is the PP. The tall building in the background is a BU dorm.

http://pics3.city-data.com/businesses/p/0/8/0/0/5320800.JPG

This old lady is there ALL THE DAMN TIME, annoying everyone.



mrieders.files.wordpress.com


i78.photobucket.com

"Why, why, why, why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to f*ck in the first place, huh?"

 
2013-06-24 03:18:58 PM

tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.


The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!
 
2013-06-24 03:19:01 PM

tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.


And vandalising a clinic this year. And bombing several clinics last year. And, oh, yeah, a high-profile murder in 2009.

You farking disingeunuous choad.
 
2013-06-24 03:20:25 PM

coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!


Technically, that's datum. Data implies multiple points. Or anecdontal evidence, since it's just one incident with a specific backstory to it that, statistically, has no farking bearing on trends.
 
2013-06-24 03:22:50 PM
These pro-life folks are largely faking it. If they REALLY wanted to lower the abortion rate in this country, they would fight for free or cheap birth control, the Pill to be OTC, and honest, effective education about reproductive biology.

But they don't, which indicates that they believe sex is really the worse thing, and all the frothing about abortion abbatoirs is a pile of BS.
 
2013-06-24 03:24:26 PM

what_now: This old lady is there ALL THE DAMN TIME, annoying everyone.


Cankles for Jesus.
 
2013-06-24 03:24:43 PM
What effect will this have on all the protesters outside of the fertility clinics where the hundreds of embryos from well-heeled couples are destroyed or tossed into the freezer on a daily basis?
 
2013-06-24 03:24:44 PM

Theaetetus: DarnoKonrad: DamnYankees: I'm not really sure how this is unconstitutional.

Consider Snyder v. Phelps.  SCOTUS not only stated that the Westboro Baptist Church has a right to spew hatred (sure why not), they stated they have a right to do it at a funeral.  I think that's unreasonable, but this is a similar case.  If "free speech" means you can harass others with it, then I'd say these buffer laws are going down.

The court's opinion also stated that the memorial service was not disturbed, saying, "Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself."

I'd bet they were at least 35 feet away.


From Snyder v. Phelps:

"The funeral procession passed within 200 to 300 feet of the picket site. Although Snyder testified that he could see the tops of the picket signs as he drove to the funeral, he did not see what was written on the signs until later that night,1214while watching a news broadcast covering the event."

A lot different from having people scream "Baby killer!" at you from 35 feet away.  And the bastards are petitioning for the right to get even closer.  For what?  There can be no other purpose than to intimidate, harass, and punish.   This is totally farking wrong!
 
2013-06-24 03:25:06 PM

Egalitarian: These pro-life folks are largely faking it. If they REALLY wanted to lower the abortion rate in this country, they would fight for free or cheap birth control, the Pill to be OTC, and honest, effective education about reproductive biology.

But they don't, which indicates that they believe sex is really the worse thing, and all the frothing about abortion abbatoirs is a pile of BS.


conservativenewjersey.com
 
2013-06-24 03:25:42 PM
I'm sure that Glenn Beck will come along any day and remind us how these protesters are using the same tactics as the KKK.
 
2013-06-24 03:27:32 PM
the republican party. Slut-shaming rape victims for decades.
 
2013-06-24 03:28:30 PM
meh, nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with allowing unfettered access to the clinics. You're entering a public place from a public street. There isn't much private about it.
 
2013-06-24 03:29:00 PM

Bloody William: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Technically, that's datum. Data implies multiple points. Or anecdontal evidence, since it's just one incident with a specific backstory to it that, statistically, has no farking bearing on trends.


Yes, yes, we know that, but since it's referred to as "1 data point" more often than not, I tend to use that despite knowing the correct terminology.  In a technical paper - or "as far from Fark as possible" - I would use it correctly.
 
2013-06-24 03:29:48 PM

skullkrusher: meh, nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with allowing unfettered access to the clinics. You're entering a public place from a public street. There isn't much private about it.


Safety for patients and staff is a major concern.
 
2013-06-24 03:30:04 PM
When SCOTUS knocks this down 5-4, send some undercover (female) cops to the clinic.  A handful a day. Any protester that touches them or says anything threatening - and that includes things like "you're going to burn in hell forever!" - arrest them.

If they get too loud, give them a warning, and then its disturbing the piece. If they drop a piece of literature on the ground, issue a ticket for littering them.  Enforce existing laws so strictly that their protest is limited to peacefully waving their signs.
 
2013-06-24 03:31:17 PM
The rights of these brave, fetus preserving patriots will continue to be infringed upon until we support their constitutional freedom to scream in the face of the whores in the OR during the procedure.
 
2013-06-24 03:31:41 PM

notto: I'm sure that Glenn Beck will come along any day and remind us how these protesters are using the same tactics as the KKK.Occupy Wall Street Movement.


FTFY, because that is what is most likely to happen.

"They were pooping on cop cars! COP CARS!" -Glenn "McTears" Beck
 
2013-06-24 03:31:49 PM

qorkfiend: skullkrusher: meh, nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with allowing unfettered access to the clinics. You're entering a public place from a public street. There isn't much private about it.

Safety for patients and staff is a major concern.


I'd lump that in with "unfettered access". An abortion clinic is a legit business. Therefore, protestors do not get to block the entrance. They do get to protest, however, but they must remain back from the entrance so as to not impede coming and going to the clinic. Seems a very reasonable limitation on the 1st amendment to me
 
2013-06-24 03:32:29 PM

MisterRonbo: When SCOTUS knocks this down 5-4, send some undercover (female) cops to the clinic.  A handful a day. Any protester that touches them or says anything threatening - and that includes things like "you're going to burn in hell forever!" - arrest them.

If they get too loud, give them a warning, and then its disturbing the piece. If they drop a piece of literature on the ground, issue a ticket for littering them.  Enforce existing laws so strictly that their protest is limited to peacefully waving their signs.



A big government crack down on pro life loving patriots?  Right, and the Tea Party will pay  taxes.
 
2013-06-24 03:32:57 PM

notto: I'm sure that Glenn Beck will come along any day and remind us how these protesters are using the same tactics as the KKK.


speaking of, has he released the game changing info that was going to fundamentally change life in America & cause riots & such & the like?

anything? anyone?
 
2013-06-24 03:34:29 PM

MooseUpNorth: She's not old, she's clearly in her late 20s or early 30s.


Hey, some of us like 'em younger.

"Hey, I didn't expect to run in to you at the bookstore"
"Oh, I'm in here all the time"
"But why are you browsing the teen paranormal romance new releases section?*".
"Where do you go to meet girls?"


* an actual section, three bookcases long, in my local Barnes & Noble
 
2013-06-24 03:35:36 PM

Isitoveryet: notto: I'm sure that Glenn Beck will come along any day and remind us how these protesters are using the same tactics as the KKK.

speaking of, has he released the game changing info that was going to fundamentally change life in America & cause riots & such & the like?

anything? anyone?


He's waiting for GBTV subscriptions to spike, paydays at Tractor Supply Co. and the Piggly Wiggly to occur.
 
2013-06-24 03:38:27 PM
Corvus, I'm going to be taking your C&P listing for use and safekeeping.
 
2013-06-24 03:41:33 PM

KhamanV: Corvus, I'm going to be taking your C&P listing for use and safekeeping.


That list pales in comparison to the total people murdered by abortion doctors since Roe v Wade.

/someone had to do it
 
2013-06-24 03:43:34 PM

tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.


Dumbass. You're wilful ignorance is not the same thing as an actual fact.
 
2013-06-24 03:45:46 PM

Bloody William: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Technically, that's datum. Data implies multiple points. Or anecdontal evidence, since it's just one incident with a specific backstory to it that, statistically, has no farking bearing on trends.


Datum? Isn't he that guy who's in that new Jamie Foxx movie?
 
2013-06-24 03:46:04 PM
 
2013-06-24 03:50:19 PM

skullkrusher: KhamanV: Corvus, I'm going to be taking your C&P listing for use and safekeeping.

That list pales in comparison to the total people murdered by abortion doctors since Roe v Wade.

/someone had to do it


Oh yeah? Name them.
 
2013-06-24 03:52:01 PM

palelizard: skullkrusher: KhamanV: Corvus, I'm going to be taking your C&P listing for use and safekeeping.

That list pales in comparison to the total people murdered by abortion doctors since Roe v Wade.

/someone had to do it

Oh yeah? Name them.


well played
 
2013-06-24 03:52:02 PM

Soup4Bonnie: what_now: This old lady is there ALL THE DAMN TIME, annoying everyone.

Cankles for Jesus.


♪ Onward, Christian soldiers caaaaaaaaaaaaankles! ♫
 
2013-06-24 03:55:53 PM

palelizard: skullkrusher: KhamanV: Corvus, I'm going to be taking your C&P listing for use and safekeeping.

That list pales in comparison to the total people murdered by abortion doctors since Roe v Wade.

/someone had to do it

Oh yeah? Name them.


Gabriel Santorum.

Zing!

//yeah, i know, not really
 
2013-06-24 03:56:53 PM

what_now: There's a PP in Davis Square that does consultations and prescriptions. No abortions, no exams, just a place for women to get information, a hand full of condoms, and fill a script.

When it opened, I was walking down the street to the burrito joint and some lady got in my face about the "abortion mill" that had just opened. I calmly explained to her that this location didn't do any exams or procedures and she hissed "JESUS CAN SEE YOU!!!1".

I still don't know what she meant by that. Was Jesus angry that I was searching for a delicious burrito? In my defense, the falafel place wasn't opened yet.


I would mow straight through a crowd of protesters to get me some Ana's right now, after having skipped lunch and living on goldfish crackers all day.
 
2013-06-24 03:57:41 PM
That seems fair in most places, provided that there are exceptions for multi-office buildings, clinics housed in buildings that are adjacent to one another (physically connected), etc.. I mean, I can reasonably exclude whoever I want from my yard, so I see no reason that a freestanding clinic or other business would have to permit anyone to be in theirs.
 
2013-06-24 04:05:40 PM
Legitimate visitors to the clinic may respond with deadly force if they feel threatened.

Let God sort them out.
 
2013-06-24 04:07:13 PM

goatleggedfellow: Legitimate visitors to the clinic may respond with deadly force if they feel threatened.

Let God sort them out.


nah, that's probably not legal.
 
2013-06-24 04:07:38 PM
It's okay, Sarah Palin said that the people who murder and vandalize abortion clinics, doctors and patients aren't terrorists. Nothing to see here.
 
2013-06-24 04:08:43 PM

nmrsnr: I'm too lazy to read the decision in that case right now, but what was their rationale? I understand the concept of "free speech zones" is anathema to some, but zoning laws don't let you sell your constitutionally protected porn within 500 yards of schools, or put up election signs within 100 yards of a polling place, so what's the problem with saying "yeah, you can say what you want, just not within 100 yards of their door?"

P.S. - in case it wasn't clear, I made up those numbers, so don't yell at me for being wrong.


You're wrong, I tell you.....WRONG!!!

/not that you're actually wrong, but for some strange reason I had this uncontrollable urge to *yell* at you that you're wrong.
//If you post anything asking folks not to yell at you for being *right*, I'll see ya there.
 
2013-06-24 04:10:06 PM

Hobodeluxe: but protesters aren't allowed to stand outside the SCOTUS doors and scream at the justices as they enter and leave are they?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/supreme-court-issues-n ew -rule-barring-protests-on-plaza/?_r=0


And aren't protestors of the Democratic and Republican convention stashed many, many blocks away from the conventions?   I'm sure that's different though...
 
2013-06-24 04:11:46 PM

qorkfiend: Datum? Isn't he that guy who's in that new Jamie Foxx movie?


Nah, he was the hemorrhoid character in Star Track.
 
2013-06-24 04:13:48 PM

palelizard: skullkrusher: KhamanV: Corvus, I'm going to be taking your C&P listing for use and safekeeping.

That list pales in comparison to the total people murdered by abortion doctors since Roe v Wade.

/someone had to do it

Oh yeah? Name them.


I e-love you. I would totally abort your babby. +1, would LOL again.
 
2013-06-24 04:20:36 PM

MisterRonbo: qorkfiend: Datum? Isn't he that guy who's in that new Jamie Foxx movie?
Nah, he was the hemorrhoid character in Star Track.


I recall the local thugs ragging me severly for loving Star Trek.

"All you like is Star Track, and Dr. Spock!"

I went up and said, if you speak about the greatest show ever conceived, do it correctly.  It's Star TREK.  And MISTER Spock.

I spent that summer in a wheelchair.
 
2013-06-24 04:31:29 PM
I would like to see this fail, but in the dissenting opinion I would like Thomas to say that he believes the protesters have the right to protest in the operating room, as long as they're willing to have the fetus implanted into themselves.
 
2013-06-24 04:33:35 PM
These clinics sending their patients a complimentary pepper sprayer before their appointment might be a useful option.
 
2013-06-24 04:34:10 PM

what_now: The Planned Parenthood on Commonwealth Ave is basically on BU's Campus. I can't tell you how many times I walked down the street trying to get to class, and had some asshat yell at me about my baby.


If you're single, they're publicly accusing you of pre-marital sex which by their own standards makes you a sinner and bad person. I wonder if a slander lawsuit would get very far, and if the defense would try to claim sex outside of marriage isn't bad after all...
 
2013-06-24 04:36:13 PM

Old enough to know better: These clinics sending their patients a complimentary pepper sprayer before their appointment might be a useful option.


yeah, so they can have their babbies in prison!
 
2013-06-24 05:03:30 PM
Republicans: Government so small it fits in a vagina.
 
2013-06-24 05:21:56 PM

spongeboob: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtm l
http://gawker.com/5896804/frank-brunis-too+good+to+be+true-abortion- ta le

Might lead to some awkward conversations.


Stories like that show the utter disconnect from reality that many of the so-called 'pro-life' people live.  They are pretty much textbook examples of cognitive dissonance.

Simply put, their abortions were completely necessary, and any other woman who decides to get an abortion is a low life whore and should be reminded of that.  That is the way their mind works.
 
2013-06-24 05:35:33 PM

coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!


Nicola Riley wasn't from Philly, derpster.
 
2013-06-24 05:41:51 PM

AurizenDarkstar: spongeboob: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtm l
http://gawker.com/5896804/frank-brunis-too+good+to+be+true-abortion- ta le

Might lead to some awkward conversations.

Stories like that show the utter disconnect from reality that many of the so-called 'pro-life' people live.  They are pretty much textbook examples of cognitive dissonance.

Simply put, their abortions were completely necessary, and any other woman who decides to get an abortion is a low life whore and should be reminded of that.  That is the way their mind works.


I've heard lots of people dispute those stories and insist that no woman who vocally opposed abortion would ever get one. I'll grant that it's possible or even likely that pro-life women get fewer abortions than pro-choice women, but their scenario is beyond a statistical outlier. It would be by a wide margin the least likely thing that has ever happened.
 
2013-06-24 05:44:18 PM

what_now: You have no first amendment right to engage anyone in conversation, you have no first amendment right to bully or harass.

Massachusetts doesn't have this law for fun, they have it because one of these "right to life" second amendment warriors murdered two receptionists in Brookline.


This.
 
2013-06-24 05:44:46 PM

Bloody William: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Technically, that's datum. Data implies multiple points. Or anecdontal evidence, since it's just one incident with a specific backstory to it that, statistically, has no farking bearing on trends.


Are talking about Steven Chase Brigham?
 
2013-06-24 05:59:29 PM

tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Nicola Riley wasn't from Philly, derpster.


Wow, now you have such a fine list to go against the huge list published by Corvus.  Your potato progenitors must be so proud.
 
2013-06-24 06:03:48 PM

coeyagi: tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Nicola Riley wasn't from Philly, derpster.

Wow, now you have such a fine list to go against the huge list published by Corvus.  Your potato progenitors must be so proud.


They are all more recent and they killed more people.
 
2013-06-24 06:13:25 PM

tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Nicola Riley wasn't from Philly, derpster.

Wow, now you have such a fine list to go against the huge list published by Corvus.  Your potato progenitors must be so proud.

They are all more recent and they killed more people.


How many incidents since the 90s to today?  That was your supposition... "what is this, the 80s?"  So back it up instead of goal post moving of "more recent".
 
2013-06-24 06:21:27 PM

AurizenDarkstar: They are pretty much textbook examples of cognitive dissonance.


Agreed.

From my own personal experience, I've found that people who hold near fanatical views on a subject often tend to display signs of cognitive dissonance.  It seems as if they have so fully committed themselves to the cause that any deviation might shatter their worldview.

Case in point: I've had a couple of debates regarding pro-life references within the Bible that many people use as their basis to justify their position.  When I point out that there are several passages that show that [Old Testament] God is indifferent [or worse, advocates the use of abortion under some scenarios, like in Numbers V], and how many of their own passages are being used out-of-context, I get a bunch of Whaaarbargle.

If people believe that abortion is an immoral act, and that they came to that decision through self-reflection, fine.  If they came to that decision because some mentor or authority figure repeated a few cherry-picked verses, then I have a problem.  If the latter folks decide to interfere with people who disagree with their opinion, then I have a big problem.  If those folks cannot be swayed and have otherwise become irrational, then IMHO, we all have a big problem.
 
2013-06-24 06:22:03 PM

coeyagi: tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Nicola Riley wasn't from Philly, derpster.

Wow, now you have such a fine list to go against the huge list published by Corvus.  Your potato progenitors must be so proud.

They are all more recent and they killed more people.

How many incidents since the 90s to today?  That was your supposition... "what is this, the 80s?"  So back it up instead of goal post moving of "more recent".


Read:
The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.
 
2013-06-24 06:36:47 PM

Old enough to know better: These clinics sending their patients a complimentary pepper sprayer before their appointment might be a useful option.


Or just a t-shirt that states, "This is a 'Stand Your Ground' state, and I'm feeling very threatened right now".
 
2013-06-24 06:37:28 PM

Dinjiin: AurizenDarkstar: They are pretty much textbook examples of cognitive dissonance.

Agreed.

From my own personal experience, I've found that people who hold near fanatical views on a subject often tend to display signs of cognitive dissonance.  It seems as if they have so fully committed themselves to the cause that any deviation might shatter their worldview.

Case in point: I've had a couple of debates regarding pro-life references within the Bible that many people use as their basis to justify their position.  When I point out that there are several passages that show that [Old Testament] God is indifferent [or worse, advocates the use of abortion under some scenarios, like in Numbers V], and how many of their own passages are being used out-of-context, I get a bunch of Whaaarbargle.

If people believe that abortion is an immoral act, and that they came to that decision through self-reflection, fine.  If they came to that decision because some mentor or authority figure repeated a few cherry-picked verses, then I have a problem.  If the latter folks decide to interfere with people who disagree with their opinion, then I have a big problem.  If those folks cannot be swayed and have otherwise become irrational, then IMHO, we all have a big problem.


A lot of the cognitive dissonance is over late-term abortions.  Pro-choice advocates want the option legally available but don't want to really see the doctors and facilities that do it.  I listed 3 that have been charged with murder and all lost their medical licenses but there are more.  There simply aren't that many doctors willing to do the procedures and so it falls to the least capable.  It's not just the horror shops either.  The dissonance is heard (*crickets*)  when these places are discovered and there is really no defense for it.
 
2013-06-24 06:40:58 PM
Well, here's a bit about the petitioners' side of this case:

Do you have the right to approach people on a public sidewalk and ask, politely, if they will consent to speak with you?  If they consent, do you have the right to converse with them? The answer had better be "yes" or a lot of things we value will be lost.

This Mass. law, unlike the Colorado law that the Court upheld in "Hill," does not allow abortion foes to approach near enough to ask for consent in a civil manner.  The Colorado law provides a buffer zone of 8 feet, near enough to request consent in a normal conversational voice.  At 35 feet, you'll have to raise your voice in what may be construed as a threatening manner.

The Mass. law forbids you to converse about abortion and its alternatives on a public sidewalk even with a consenting party, if you are within 35 feet of a "reproductive healthcare facility's" entrance.  Even silently offering leaflets is banned within the buffer zone.

The Mass. law originally conformed closely with Colorado's. It was revised to make it easier for cops to enforce.  They had difficulty determining  whether consent was given, somebody claimed.  The mere convenience of law enforcement is not sufficient grounds to infringe upon First Amendment rights (yeah, I know; but those are other Amendments).

"But anti-abortionists don't ask  nicely!"  you say.  Well, if  they don't, you can bust them for harassment or something.  But you can't presume that they won't; that's prior restraint of speech.  You can only set reasonable and necessary rules for engagement and then arrest actual violators.  You can't arrest people because people like them have committed crimes.   (Unless they're black or  brown,of course.)

So really, the Court need not reverse Hill v. Colorado or allow protesters unbridled power to torment abortion patients .  it need only rein in the Mass. statute.

If you want to read more about both sides on SCOTUSblog, the case is McCullen v. Coakley. Pity TFA didn't mention that.
 
2013-06-24 07:08:20 PM

tbeatty: Dinjiin: AurizenDarkstar: They are pretty much textbook examples of cognitive dissonance.

Agreed.

From my own personal experience, I've found that people who hold near fanatical views on a subject often tend to display signs of cognitive dissonance.  It seems as if they have so fully committed themselves to the cause that any deviation might shatter their worldview.

Case in point: I've had a couple of debates regarding pro-life references within the Bible that many people use as their basis to justify their position.  When I point out that there are several passages that show that [Old Testament] God is indifferent [or worse, advocates the use of abortion under some scenarios, like in Numbers V], and how many of their own passages are being used out-of-context, I get a bunch of Whaaarbargle.

If people believe that abortion is an immoral act, and that they came to that decision through self-reflection, fine.  If they came to that decision because some mentor or authority figure repeated a few cherry-picked verses, then I have a problem.  If the latter folks decide to interfere with people who disagree with their opinion, then I have a big problem.  If those folks cannot be swayed and have otherwise become irrational, then IMHO, we all have a big problem.

A lot of the cognitive dissonance is over late-term abortions.  Pro-choice advocates want the option legally available but don't want to really see the doctors and facilities that do it.  I listed 3 that have been charged with murder and all lost their medical licenses but there are more.  There simply aren't that many doctors willing to do the procedures and so it falls to the least capable.  It's not just the horror shops either.  The dissonance is heard (*crickets*)  when these places are discovered and there is really no defense for it.


Except that those of us who support a woman's right to an abortion already DO have issues when doctors like this come to light.  You probably won't believe anything I say, but the crimes that the Dr. Gosnell committed are heinous, and he SHOULD go to jail for committing these acts.  But that doesn't mean that every single doctor that performs abortions (and the few that actually perform late term ones) is a killer in disguise, no matter what your religion supposedly says.

As far as less capable people performing these procedures, it might be due to the fact that the pro-life crowd has either a. been actively trying to kill these doctors or b. have been working with state legislators to put roadblocks to safe procedures being done.  Instead of making sure that these procedures are safe, many states are removing the option altogether.
 
2013-06-24 07:23:10 PM

AurizenDarkstar: Except that those of us who support a woman's right to an abortion already DO have issues when doctors like this come to light. You probably won't believe anything I say, but the crimes that the Dr. Gosnell committed are heinous, and he SHOULD go to jail for committing these acts. But that doesn't mean that every single doctor that performs abortions (and the few that actually perform late term ones) is a killer in disguise, no matter what your religion supposedly says.

As far as less capable people performing these procedures, it might be due to the fact that the pro-life crowd has either a. been actively trying to kill these doctors or b. have been working with state legislators to put roadblocks to safe procedures being done. Instead of making sure that these procedures are safe, many states are removing the option altogether.


This ^^^^^ is the cognitive dissonance.  Gosnell was one person,  These aren't planned parenthood clinics.  There are many doctors that have fallen beneath the cracks for a REALLY long time that did procedures that competent doctors wouldn't do outside a hospital setting.  Steven Chase Brigham has operated for decades beyond what should be acceptable.  Because it is abortion, though, there isn't the same scrutiny because looking makes the dissonance too loud.  Gosnell had a long history of complaints and lawsuits.  It was the DEA and the War on Drugs that brought the abortion stuff to light.   There are many OB/GYN doctors and hospitals that will do a late-term delivery or abortion to save the life of the mother.  These late term clinics though, exist on the fringe of both the medical community and society for no medical reason.  It's obvious that no one likes a system that allows Gosnell and Brigham to exist but your dissonance creates obstacles to removing them.
 
2013-06-24 07:34:32 PM
Time and place restrictions are allowed under the 1st amendment. This includes abortion protestors
 
2013-06-24 07:36:08 PM

tbeatty: This ^^^^^ is the cognitive dissonance.


I suspect you don't quite have a solid grasp on what this term means.
 
2013-06-24 07:40:42 PM

Warlordtrooper: Time and place restrictions are allowed under the 1st amendment. This includes abortion protestors


THIS!!
 
2013-06-24 07:57:33 PM

Biological Ali: tbeatty: This ^^^^^ is the cognitive dissonance.

I suspect you don't quite have a solid grasp on what this term means.


Oh please.  You can troll better than that.

0/10
 
2013-06-24 08:08:24 PM

tbeatty: Biological Ali: tbeatty: This ^^^^^ is the cognitive dissonance.

I suspect you don't quite have a solid grasp on what this term means.

Oh please.  You can troll better than that.

0/10


Someone else used the term "dissonance" upthread in describing the inconsistency of those "the only moral abortion is my abortion folks". That actually made sense (albeit not in the clinical sense of the term, but in the popular sense of a person expressing contradictory views that they haven't reconciled in a way that makes sense).

You then made several posts to the effect of "There's cognitive dissonance among pro-choice people too", but really, the only thing that's apparent (leaving your other tenuous arguments aside for the moment) is that you don't really know what the term means, since you haven't indicated that pro-choice people are simultaneously arguing contradictory things.

I'm not even trying to pick a fight with you here. I'm just saying that if you're not sure what a term means, you should look it up before using it.
 
2013-06-24 08:14:26 PM

Warlordtrooper: Time and place restrictions are allowed under the 1st amendment. This includes abortion protestors


People always forget the "reasonable and necessary" part of restrictions they want.  So do governments,but that doesn't excuse it.
 
2013-06-24 08:28:26 PM

tbeatty: A lot of the cognitive dissonance is over late-term abortions. Pro-choice advocates want the option legally available but don't want to really see the doctors and facilities that do it. I listed 3 that have been charged with murder and all lost their medical licenses but there are more. There simply aren't that many doctors willing to do the procedures and so it falls to the least capable. It's not just the horror shops either. The dissonance is heard (*crickets*) when these places are discovered and there is really no defense for it.


AurizenDarkstar: Except that those of us who support a woman's right to an abortion already DO have issues when doctors like this come to light. You probably won't believe anything I say, but the crimes that the Dr. Gosnell committed are heinous, and he SHOULD go to jail for committing these acts.


Gosnell was a chop-shop.  He should have been shut down long before.  Even if he wasn't performing abortions, he probably would have had his license yanked were he practicing in other fields of medicine.

As for the statement that "pro-choice advocates are undermining access to late term abortions", that's a tricky statement.  Pro-choice PACs are still actively fighting to retain or expand access.  Most people who identify as pro-choice still support the procedure under special circumstances and tend to vote as such.  The only group of significance who would fall under that statement are abortion doctors themselves.

That's not cognitive dissonance on the part of the pro-choice supporters, that's the real result of a campaign of fear and intimidation.  I wouldn't want to worry either whether or not some zealot is going to show up to my house and murder my wife and children because they found my residential address on an anti-abortion website.  Sure, you can shoot the bastards if they try, but there is a never ending stream of nutjobs in the country.  You'd have to send a lot of souls to Hell before abortion would be safe to do again in this country.  Pessimism says that it is just better to leave it to others, and if there aren't any, then that sucks but it is better to be alive.
 
2013-06-24 08:36:32 PM

Biological Ali: tbeatty: Biological Ali: tbeatty: This ^^^^^ is the cognitive dissonance.

I suspect you don't quite have a solid grasp on what this term means.

Oh please.  You can troll better than that.

0/10

Someone else used the term "dissonance" upthread in describing the inconsistency of those "the only moral abortion is my abortion folks". That actually made sense (albeit not in the clinical sense of the term, but in the popular sense of a person expressing contradictory views that they haven't reconciled in a way that makes sense).



The dissonance is broadly supporting late-term abortion rights and narrowly condemning the outcome.  It's the same reasoning as "the only moral abortion is my abortion."  Saying you support broad late term abortion rights but then not support it's conclusion is dissonance.  I don't expect you to understand if you suffer from it just as "the only moral abortion is my abortion" people don't understand it.  That's why it's dissonance.  When dissonance exists, the people that have it are not particularly rational and avoid it.  Whence, the reason why some of these atrocities have gone on so long without oversight or correction,  When there should have been reasoned clarity there was dissonance and the desire to avoid it by ignoring it.
 
2013-06-24 08:46:26 PM

tbeatty: The dissonance is broadly supporting late-term abortion rights and narrowly condemning the outcome. It's the same reasoning as "the only moral abortion is my abortion." Saying you support broad late term abortion rights but then not support it's conclusion is dissonance.


Narrowly condemning what outcome? Are you saying that somebody who supports the right to late-term abortion must necessarily support Gosnell (or must necessarily refrain from condemning him) in order to be consistent? I surely hope not, because that would be even more ridiculous than merely being confused about what "cognitive dissonance" means.
 
2013-06-24 09:37:58 PM

EvilEgg: If the town can set up a 500 foot no stripper zone around churches and schools, it surely can set up a 35 foot no idiot zone around abortion clinics.

The strippers are even hidden from view inside a building in all, while the idiots are right out in the open.  I don't want my kids exposed to that kind of hate.  Think of the children.


I say we treat them like other protesters and shove them in a "Free Speech Zone" a couple blocks away. I'm sure more than a few anti-choice people believe they're ok when they are used against someone they disagree with.

I think 35' is enough, personally. You're close enough to hurl the obscenities most choose to do, or call them murderers. I'd rather have you yelling it so everyone can see what an a$$ you are.
 
2013-06-24 11:13:58 PM

Biological Ali: tbeatty: The dissonance is broadly supporting late-term abortion rights and narrowly condemning the outcome. It's the same reasoning as "the only moral abortion is my abortion." Saying you support broad late term abortion rights but then not support it's conclusion is dissonance.

Narrowly condemning what outcome? Are you saying that somebody who supports the right to late-term abortion must necessarily support Gosnell (or must necessarily refrain from condemning him) in order to be consistent? I surely hope not, because that would be even more ridiculous than merely being confused about what "cognitive dissonance" means.


You're embarrassing yourself with the lack of understanding.  Perhaps it's your own cognitive dissonance.

You're argument doesn't even work for your example of cognitive dissonance.  Your arguing in the negative.   You don't actually require people that are pro-choice to actually have an abortion or even be okay with abortion as an option, do you?  You certainly must realize that people can be pro-choice and personally not be in favor of abortion for themselves, right?  You don't consider that cognitive dissonance I hope.  That would explain your lack of understanding.

To be consistent, condemning Gosnell must also condemn the system that created him and allowed him (and those like Steven Chase Brigham) to exist for so long.  That's nowhere near the broad category of abortion rights that you tried to neatly create as the overarching viewpoint to start from.  It's specifically late term abortions past viability and the very few clinics that perform them on demand.  Pennsylvania's medical licensing  recognized this when they realized how many clues they missed and why the problem was systemic lasting for decades.  If you know how cognitive dissonance work, the people afflicted will avoid it or justify it: "oh, he supplies Women's Health to poor and underserved communities" was why a number of complaints were overlooked and provided sanitized cover of what he did - in reality he only provided late term abortions in unspeakable conditions.  Those are facts. They didn't want to believe their system of views and values could create a monster.  In fact, the Weeners by the original reply was an argument that anti-abortionist created people like Gosnell because of threats to good doctors.  That's a classic dissonant response to mold their view to make themselves more comfortable with their conflicting views.   In fact, most Ob/Gyn doctors will perform abortions in certain circumstances.  They aren't picketed or threatened but pointing that out and pointing out that clinics like Gosnell's simply don't need to exist brings out the dissonance and the justifications commence.
 
2013-06-25 12:08:10 AM

tbeatty: You're embarrassing yourself with the lack of understanding. Perhaps it's your own cognitive dissonance.


You'd have done better to just say "Yeah, I guess I wasn't really talking about cognitive dissonance after all", because your attempts to shoehorn your criticisms into this "cognitive dissonance" angle are just making less and less sense with each post (unless this is some really, really subtle satire about people who use "cognitive dissonance" as a generic insult because it sounds fancy, much like "projection" or "ad hominem").

To be consistent, condemning Gosnell must also condemn the system that created him and allowed him

The obvious problem with your argument is that "support for late-term abortions" is not synonymous with "the system that created [Gosnell] and allowed him" to do whatever. No, the primary responsibility lies with Gosnell himself, and then maybe with the police etc. if they turned their back on obvious probable cause (but that's a big "if", since I haven't seen any credible accusations that the actions were negligent based on what was known at the time; it's mostly just Captain Hindsight stuff similar to the people complaining that Tamerlan Tsarnaev should have been arrested years ago).

"Cognitive dissonance", whether you're going by the technical meaning or the popular meaning, applies only if one condition is met: the person must hold, simultaneously, two separate and clearly defined beliefs that the person cannot reconcile via normal logic. For instance, "All abortions are immoral, except when done to save a life" versus "My abortion for the sake of convenience is not immoral". There's no normal way to reconcile those two things.

On the other hand, "I support late-term abortions under any circumstance" (which itself is not synonymous with "pro-choice", which is what you started off with), is very easy to reconcile with "I don't support Kermit Gosnell" because the main charges against Gosnell have nothing to do with abortion at all, but are related to the killing of babies after birth, and of course the death of one of his patients, along with a number of more boring charges related to the conditions under which he worked.

You may make the argument that support for late-term abortions is an integral part of the "system" that created Gosnell, and it may even be a very good argument (though I obviously have my doubts), but it still wouldn't mean there's any "cognitive dissonance" going on. No, what you're doing is making is a conventional argument, premised (apparently) on a link between support for late-term abortions and the "system" that created Gosnell, and concluding (apparently) that people who condemn Gosnell should also condemn late-term abortions in general. Since this argument is coming from you, and others (including people who support late-term abortions) are under no obligation to accept your premise, inferences or conclusion, it cannot possibly be the basis for a claim of "cognitive dissonance" on their part.

I mean, if you really want to make this argument, go right ahead; I'm just letting you know that the "cognitive dissonance" angle is silly and adds nothing to it.
 
2013-06-25 12:21:26 AM

tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Nicola Riley wasn't from Philly, derpster.


Actually, she was operating legally, and committed malpractice, which thousands of doctors do every year. Try it again, Sam.
 
2013-06-25 12:36:01 AM

Selena Luna: tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Nicola Riley wasn't from Philly, derpster.

Actually, she was operating legally, and committed malpractice, which thousands of doctors do every year. Try it again, Sam.


Really?  The prosecutor said she committed murder but because the clinic would induce labor and start in New Jersey and finish it in Maryland to take advantage of various state laws, they couldn't tell what state she killed the baby in.
 
2013-06-25 09:14:55 AM

tbeatty: Selena Luna: tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Nicola Riley wasn't from Philly, derpster.

Actually, she was operating legally, and committed malpractice, which thousands of doctors do every year. Try it again, Sam.

Really?  The prosecutor said she committed murder but because the clinic would induce labor and start in New Jersey and finish it in Maryland to take advantage of various state laws, they couldn't tell what state she killed the baby in.


The judge dropped the charges, which came up because she perforated a woman's uterus. They dropped the charges for insufficient evidence.
 
2013-06-25 10:02:09 AM

WhoIsWillo: DamnYankees: I'm not really sure how this is unconstitutional.

The argument that is being made is that it is the first amendment right of abortion protestors to make their message heard directly outside of the clinic. If I were arguing the case, I would point out that it is designed to protect one specific form of patient, and is therefore politically motivated to limit a specific kind of speech.


And if I were arguing against that, I would simply bring up the strings of abortion bombings and the harrassment that  still goes on despite the law, demonstrating that this is not simply a speech matter, and that the restriction fulfills a compelling government interest in protecting the patients.
 
2013-06-25 04:04:42 PM

Selena Luna: tbeatty: Selena Luna: tbeatty: coeyagi: tbeatty: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.

Wow.  Are you living in the 1980's?

The latest crimes regarding abortion seem to be committed by abortion Dr,'s that murdered their patients.

The only crime related to abortion I see in this post is that the poster wasn't subjected to one.

//seriously, that is the saddest f*cking assessment ever, you are basing that on 1 f*cking imbecile in Philly. DURR 1 DATA POINT HURR!!!1!

Nicola Riley wasn't from Philly, derpster.

Actually, she was operating legally, and committed malpractice, which thousands of doctors do every year. Try it again, Sam.

Really?  The prosecutor said she committed murder but because the clinic would induce labor and start in New Jersey and finish it in Maryland to take advantage of various state laws, they couldn't tell what state she killed the baby in.

The judge dropped the charges, which came up because she perforated a woman's uterus. They dropped the charges for insufficient evidence.


Judges don't drop charges, prosecutors do.

"In his Tuesday news release announcing the dismissal of the charges, Cecil County State's Attorney Ellis Rollins III cited a lack of jurisdiction over the two-state procedure. The charges against Brigham, which included murder counts related to four other abortions, were also dropped. "
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53659761-78/riley-charges-abortion -s tatement.html.csp
 
Displayed 136 of 136 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report