Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Asinine, abortions  
•       •       •

2544 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2013 at 2:38 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-06-24 02:15:19 PM  
5 votes:
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 03:17:00 PM  
4 votes:

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 02:03:08 PM  
4 votes:
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 01:50:38 PM  
4 votes:

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 01:44:29 PM  
4 votes:
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 01:36:53 PM  
4 votes:
They should work on "no shooting doctors" and "no firebombing" zones.
2013-06-24 03:50:19 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:22:50 PM  
3 votes:
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 02:48:49 PM  
3 votes:
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 01:51:09 PM  
3 votes:
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 05:03:30 PM  
2 votes:
Republicans: Government so small it fits in a vagina.
2013-06-24 03:11:47 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:50:02 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:47:45 PM  
2 votes:
They can practice free speech all they want - in organized protests that do not threaten individuals receiving constitutionally-allowed medical care.
2013-06-25 12:08:10 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2013-06-24 08:08:24 PM  
1 vote:

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.

I live with my mom


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 07:08:20 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:21:27 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:44:46 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:57:41 PM  
1 vote:
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 03:30:04 PM  
1 vote:
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 03:27:32 PM  
1 vote:
the republican party. Slut-shaming rape victims for decades.
2013-06-24 03:24:44 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:24:43 PM  
1 vote:
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 03:19:01 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:08:27 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:05:28 PM  
1 vote:
"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 03:02:49 PM  
1 vote:
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 03:01:46 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:55:35 PM  
1 vote:
2013-06-24 02:53:38 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:52:48 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:47:47 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:47:47 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:43:38 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:27:58 PM  
1 vote:

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


Because Christianity is oppressed, didn't you know that?
2013-06-24 02:19:04 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:11:25 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:02:42 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:57:12 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report