Why Abortion Clinics Need Buffer Zones ("You've only got to look to history")

[LanternWaste]

Yesterday or the day before, a thread was bouncing around that included someone calling them-self a "free speech absolutist" who believes that buffer zones around Women's Health Clinics denied him his right to free speech. Providence (or coincidence) had this short and wonderful Think-Progress article appear on my news feed this morning which countered every point the poster had initially made.

Was the poster serious, or just a moderate-post-count troll? Hard to tell anymore. After seeing yesterday's thread about on-line dating, I've finally realized that even Democrats have serious issues with women-- seeing you as pieces in a game, or rationalizing the phrase "kneel, b**ch" as little more than romantic profiling. So I don't pretend to myself that only trolls on DU will pay lip service to the collective equlity, but deny it on a personal level. Enough lunchtime rambling... on with the article!

***************************************************************************************************

Why Abortion Clinics Need Buffer Zones

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a case that could ultimately determine whether women across the country can maintain safe access to abortion clinics. Depending how the justices rule on McCullen v. Coakley, cities and states may no longer be allowed to enact buffer zones around reproductive health care facilities — a policy that abortion providers say is critical for ensuring the safety of their patients and staff, since protests outside of clinics often turn violent.

Earlier this week, the New York Times and the Associated Press both profiled Eleanor McCullen, the 77-year-old plaintiff in the legal challenge who has become the face of the current Supreme Court battle. McCullen says that buffer zones violate her free speech rights, and points out that she’s hardly a threat to women entering health facilities. “I am 5 feet 1 inch tall,” McCullen said in a filed statement for the case. “My body type can be described as ‘plump.’ I am a mother and grandmother.”

“To characterize buffer zone laws as nothing more than an infringement on the rights of concerned, sweet little old ladies is to erase over 4,700 incidents of clinic violence and over 140 clinic blockades that have taken place since 1995,” Michelle Kinsey Bruns, a Virginia-based activist who’s done clinic escorting in eight different states, told ThinkProgress. “It’s a slap in the face to the victims of those attacks, and it puts others at risk for still more violence.”

“You don’t need to be a pro-choice feminist to believe that crowds of protesters outside of clinics make for a volatile situation. Even an anti-choice Catholic Archbishop can see it,” Kinsey Bruns pointed out. “And you don’t need to have a political agenda to believe that clinic protesters can be dangerous. You've only got to look to history.”


http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/15/3163761/abortion-clinics-need-buffer-zones/

[ismnotwasm]

1. If the buffer zone is rescinded

We will need volunteers to counter them.

I get free speech, but there is a safety factor here. Will they block or interfere with a potentially ill woman from getting preventative care---which is exactly what an abortion is?

How is that protected speech? How can they guarantee harm won't happen?

They can't.

[nomorenomore08]

2. Physical acts of aggression do not remotely fall under free speech. WTF is wrong with people?

Not to mention the folly of conceding ground to anti-choice fanatics, but that's a subject for another thread...

[One_Life_To_Give]

3. The question seems to be about the size of the buffer

Must the state demonstrate the buffer distance is the minimum to prevent Violence and Obstruction. Or does the state have a right to enact a larger buffer?

I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of "test" come out where the State was compelled to demonstrate it's requirement was the minimum to protect another fundamental right. That is to say the State can only restrict the abortion protestor to the extent required to ensure the patients can access their healthcare provider/service. Which is probably closer than we would like, but may be the best we can get.

[LanternWaste]

4. I think the question is about the existence rather than size of the zones.

The opening paragraph specifically states that the question being ruled on by the MA court is the very existence, rather than the size of the safety zone:

"Depending how the justices rule on McCullen v. Coakley, cities and states may no longer be allowed to enact buffer zones around reproductive health care facilities..."

Indeed, an article linked to from the original states that,"those protesters may soon have unlimited ability to “counsel” or even harass patients approaching women’s health clinics..."

As for any court required test, the article goes on to state that "McCullen hinges on two distinctions at the heart of First Amendment law. Laws that are “content-based” — that is, laws that single out speech about a particular topic for inferior treatment — and laws that engage in “viewpoint discrimination” — that is, laws that treat people who hold one set of views differently than people who hold opposing view.."

The plaintiffs for the case are arguing the Massachusetts law as one that engages in viewpoint discrimination because it permits clinic workers and their patients to enter and exit the buffer zones (and thus to enter and exit the clinic itself), without permitting abortion protesters to do so, rather that the zone being too large or too small.

In essence, they are arguing that the only reason anyone ever protests outside of a health clinic is because they oppose abortion, so *any* restrictions (i.e., the mere existence of a buzzer zone-- no matter how small) on protests outside of clinics should be treated as an impermissible restriction.

[One_Life_To_Give]

5. Perhaps I am overemphasizing Justice Kagan's line of questioning

Obviously the Plaintiffs want it struck completely. And it appears 3 Justices already agree although even Scalia admitted 35ft might be appropriate if they were "protesting".

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/argument-recap-buffer-zones-maybe-yes-but-how-big/

If the Chief Justice were also to become an ally, buffer zones that are not confined explicitly to stopping violence or actual physical obstruction may well be doomed altogether — on strict First Amendment principles.

[Flatulo]

6. Free speech my ass. My wife has been assaulted, accosted, impeded, grabbed, cajoled, and blocked

from going to work because there is a PP clinic in her building. Several times I've had to escort her and others into the building (that's in the past, when I was fit - now I'm disabled with a completely worn-out back). Those protesters would shove fetus pictures into her face and fall to their knees, grabbing her by the calves. She was quite traumatized by the experience.

Back in the '80s I was arrested for assault for punching out some asshole who grabbed my wife. I fought the charges and won. I would have punched that guy all day long if that's what it took to get him out of my wife's way.

[sufrommich]

7. This is why they want the 35 foot rule banned,they can't

assault women from 35 feet away. Good for you for trying to defend your wife and others.

[Flatulo]

8. This was back in '84 or '85, and yes, it was quite awful... You've never seen 'god-fearing' people

acting like complete animals. I was pretty shaken up by the confrontations, as well. I hadn't been in a brawl since junior high school, but I just saw red when that fellow grabbed my wife's legs. That was it for me.

After a few incidents like that, the Worcester police established their own safety zone, free speech be damned. They rightly determined that they had an obligation to prevent mass assault.

Things quieted down there after a while, with the protestors just kneeling and praying, which I'm fine with, as long as they don't impede or lay one finger on others.

[Lunacee_2013]

9. Good for you for standing up for your wife.

We need more men like you. And you're right, they just want to get close enough to physically stop women from going into those clinics. They have the same amount of free speech 35 feet away as they do 3.5 inches away.

[Lunacee_2013]

10. Just a note:

There are buffer zones for protests that happen near polling places and funerals for service women and men. This is not unheard of because we have done this before. The zones give people a safe place to practice their 1st amendment rights, while also protecting the rights of others. These buffer zones DO NOT infringe upon anyone's right of freedom of speech and they will protect innocent women, and probably some men, too, from being harassed, attacked, or even murdered.

The only reason the "pro-lifers" want the buffer zones gone is so they can get close enough to harass women by shoving those damn fetus pics in their faces, or grab their legs (like the wife of one poster above), and physically try to stop them from going in, or try to force them to listen to their fuck-up "counseling", or worse physically attack them ('cause hey, they're already gonna kill their babies anyways, so why not? )

But anyway, I just heard that on TRMS and thought it could be useful.