U.S. Supreme Court removes buffer zones from abortion clinic protestors

originally posted by: lightedhype
Well I am glad for this decision. I for one think most women going into said clinics could probably USE a good 45 seconds of accosting.

Right, because the ONLY service provided by planned parenthood is abortions. Is it willful ignorance or just plain old fashioned hatred because someone is defying your god? Lets look at some numbers...
41% of planned parenthood visits consisted of testing for STD's and subsequent treatment for those who needed it.
Another 32% were there for contraception so they could avoid an abortion down the road.

For fiscal year 2011 planned parenthood performed 11,383,900 procedures(by procedures, this includes all testing such as std's and pregnancy). Of the nearly 11 and a half million procedures done at planned parenthoods across the US they performed 332,278 abortions. That's 3% of the total services and procedures performed for the entire year. It's not like every woman walking through the door is there for an abortion yet morons protesting don't bother to learn facts and instead berate, belittle and intimidate woman based on zero knowledge. It's purely an ignorant fantasy to make themselves feel better and justified about their decidedly antichristian attitude presented in the name of Christ. Oh Hypocrisy, how do I love thee.

a reply to: peter vlar

seriously! i'm surprised no one said this sooner. it's actually exactly what i was thinking. so many young women go to facilities like planned parent hood solely for birth control. so you have some jack@ss outside foaming at the mouth at some 16 year old who is actually being responsible and trying to use a form of contraceptive to PREVENT getting pregnant in the first place!

a reply to: peter vlar

Wow dude didn't know that (different thing here in the uk) so yeah you are gonna get people screaming at everyone going in there.....
Should freedom of speech be so darn written in stone? when it will be used to try and shame women? I know many will say yes I should be able to scream 8 foot away from a girl whom goes in here that she is a whore.

Oh and btw who brought this up in court again? was it people who wanted to picket and scream at women or someone else?.
Nah sorry opened up a massive can of worms with this ruling it isn't going to do anything but harm.

Don't you just love these little "victories" as you walk around with the NSA #*^& up your $##?

My concern is... are anti-abortionists going to use this ruling as an excuse to commit violent acts against women and employees of the clinic? Safety of all involved is a concern.

I wonder how religious people would feel if every time they went to church, there was a group of spittle-laden atheists at the door, waving pictures of the spaghetti monster and screaming insulting things in their faces...

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: peter vlar

Wow dude didn't know that (different thing here in the uk) so yeah you are gonna get people screaming at everyone going in there.....

Yup, its disgusting behavior perpetrated by adults you claim they are representing and espousing religious ideals in support of their stance despite their actions being a anything but compassionate, kind or loving. It's a decidedly non Christian mindset in my opinion.

Should freedom of speech be so darn written in stone? when it will be used to try and shame women? I know many will say yes I should be able to scream 8 foot away from a girl whom goes in here that she is a whore.

It's one of those bastard double edged swords that you're bound to cut yourself on sooner or later. I'm of the opinion that you absolutely have to tolerate speech and actions that I not only disagree with but am appalled by, like this or even the vulgarities of the Westboro Baptist Church, if I am to expect my own rights to be upheld. Where I take issue is when people are fully cognizant of the implications and potential or likely outcomes of their actions and hide behind their "rights" like their mommies skirt. I've always been of the mindset that rights aren't just up for grabs and totally free of consequence. They come with implied responsibility. Sort of like how the SCOTUS was forced back in the day to issue rulings making it illegal to scream Fire! In a crowded theater for example. When I see grown men an women acting in the fashion these protesters do I simply can't fathom how they rationalize it in any way whatsoever. It's simply inappropriate on multiple levels.

Oh and btw who brought this up in court again? was it people who wanted to picket and scream at women or someone else?.
Nah sorry opened up a massive can of worms with this ruling it isn't going to do anything but harm.

This case was brought up by protesters, specifically a catholic grandmother who claims that sue doesn't yell or get in people's faces etc... Personally I'm leery, my wife is a nurse who worked at a Planned Parenthood briefly while in nursing school and the protesters were just foul, ignorant excuses for flesh who would spit at her and call her some vile names because they couldn't be bothered to grasp what was actually going on in there, which was mostly STD and pregnancy testing along with dispensing birth control and education so that they could keep their services related specifically to abortion as minimal as possible.
www.masslive.com...

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
My concern is... are anti-abortionists going to use this ruling as an excuse to commit violent acts against women and employees of the clinic? Safety of all involved is a concern.

I wonder how religious people would feel if every time they went to church, there was a group of spittle-laden atheists at the door, waving pictures of the spaghetti monster and screaming insulting things in their faces...

If that were the case the law as it was previous wouldn't have stopped them.

To your second point we already have the persecution of folks that support traditional marriage without even condemning the contrary while doing so! Losing jobs and contracts. Do you this this as viable social pressure against free speech?

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: peter vlar

Wow dude didn't know that (different thing here in the uk) so yeah you are gonna get people screaming at everyone going in there.....

Yup, its disgusting behavior perpetrated by adults you claim they are representing and espousing religious ideals in support of their stance despite their actions being a anything but compassionate, kind or loving. It's a decidedly non Christian mindset in my opinion.

Adults? Yea they should act more like the classy, calm adults that suck a thrashing underdeveloped human being out of its mothers body. The very compassionate, kind and loving adults that do so.

But the screaming and yelling, name-calling does nothing. Just the other day the FBU reported that child abuse is rising exponentially. People have been screaming about this for years!

originally posted by: Logarock
If that were the case the law as it was previous wouldn't have stopped them.

35 feet away from a would-be attacker is a lot safer than no distance.

To your second point we already have the persecution of folks that support traditional marriage without even condemning the contrary while doing so! Losing jobs and contracts. Do you this this as viable social pressure against free speech?

I'm not sure what you mean... I am unaware of any persecution or job loss against folks who simply support traditional marriage. I support traditional marriage (I'm in one) but that doesn't automatically mean being against non-traditional marriage. Besides, my question had nothing to do with marriage.

How would church attendees feel if every time they went to church, there was a group of spittle-laden atheists at the door, waving pictures of the spaghetti monster and screaming insulting things in their faces? Would you support the atheists' free speech?

a reply to: Logarock

Do you read? 3% of the total services provided by Planned Parenthood are abortions. Just short of 75% of all services are pregnancy tests, STD tests and treatment and birth control prescriptions. So is yelling and spitting at every woman who walks into a clinic really a rational, adult response?

Interesting as well that you fail to see the irony of your statement about increased child abuse as it seems pyou would prefer to force people to bear children they do not want or cannot emotionally, financially or otherwise care for properly and additionally scare them away from a place where they can get birth control products to avoid unwanted pregnancies and medical screening to keep themselves healthy for when they are ready for a child.

a reply to: peter vlar


So do you want to go ahead and say that ending a child's life early is a good and compassionate thing based on what a burden it would be for all evolved? You should consider that this sounds like lunacy. But I can see if you are compassionate enough to want to end a child's life early how you would be one up in your mind on the compassion of any anti abortion group.

And yes I can read. Only 3% of total services are abortions. Man that makes it all so much better....such a low figure. Thank God for birth control. That figure could be so much higher. What a public service.

a reply to: Logarock

So do you want to go ahead and say that ending a child's life early is a good and compassionate thing

I can't speak for Peter, but I would say that it's preventing a child's life from beginning. Let's be honest and use the correct words.

zygote (day 1: conception)
blastocyst (about day 10 : implantation)
embryo (about day 14 : dramatic growth)
( about 10 weeks : features begin to look human)
baby ( from moment of birth until toddler stage )
newborn ( 0–1 month)
infant ( 1 month – 1 year)
toddler ( 1–3 years)
preschooler ( 4–6 years)
school-aged child ( 6–13 years)
adolescent ( 13–18)
youth
young adults
adult
middle age
senior

liberalslikechrist.org...

originally posted by: Logarock
So do you want to go ahead and say that ending a child's life early is a good and compassionate thing based on what a burden it would be for all evolved?

I would say that ending a pregnancy is a good and compassionate thing if the woman doesn't want to have a child for whatever reason. There are enough unwanted, suffering and hungry children in this world.

Only 3% of total services are abortions. Man that makes it all so much better....such a low figure. Thank God for birth control. That figure could be so much higher. What a public service.

Absolutely agree 100%.

Just a note on your last post, in which you didn't answer my question. "Supporting traditional marriage" is code for wanting to deny rights to those with whom you disagree. Just like "pro-life" is code for the same thing. Why don't people claim their actual positions and call themselves "anti-gay" and "anti-choice"?

originally posted by: windword

Perhaps women seeking abortions should start carrying guns and employ the threat of "stand your ground" when entering the clinics.

It's a valid point, the Roe v. Wade bench legislation was effectively a "Stand your Uterus" law allowing mothers-to-be the justification to kill.

As to the OP, of course the media is going to run wild with this judgement being an "attack on women" aspect. In reality it is an interesting decision potentially against the fed's "Free Speech Zones" bullcrap by a court that historically has kissed the fed's ass on all matters of supposed national security.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: peter vlar


So do you want to go ahead and say that ending a child's life early is a good and compassionate thing based on what a burden it would be for all evolved?

No, I won't go ahead and say that. You can't end a life early if it hasn't been born. It's not a child yet, it doesn't have a name, legal status, nothing that makes it a person. If it can't survive on its own outside the womb then you don't really have an argument.

You should consider that this sounds like lunacy.

Considering the source of the opinion I'm not likely to consider that in the least.

But I can see if you are compassionate enough to want to end a child's life early how you would be one up in your mind on the compassion of any anti abortion group.

I've yet to see a single gram of compassion from any antiabortion protester so the comparison is rather moot. Again, no life is being ended early. You can't die if you've never been born.

And yes I can read. Only 3% of total services are abortions. Man that makes it all so much better....such a low figure. Thank God for birth control. That figure could be so much higher. What a public service.

Well that's a first step in the right direction. Perhaps you should work on the comprehension aspect of reading because you missed the point entirely. You are justifying the harassment of nearly 11.5 million women based solely on the medical requirements of 336,000 +/- yup... That's some serious compassion you have there.

It's a pretty black and white world view you're demonstrating when the decision making process and the reasons behind getting an abortion are anything BUT black and white. Be careful not to hit your head while riding around on that white horse of yours passing judgement on people you know nothing about, who's situation you know nothing about simply because it defies your personal moral proclivities. I hear ISIL is recruiting in Iraq if you're looking for work.

Good.

I don't agree with abortion, but that doesn't mean safe and proper access to it isn't a thing we need in the 21st century.

However, people have a right to protest and creating zones where they can and cannot do so, is really just setting precedent that nobody needs.

Besides, a fake 'buffer' zone isn't going to stop somebody from being violent any more than the Patriot Act did.

~Tenth

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
My concern is... are anti-abortionists going to use this ruling as an excuse to commit violent acts against women and employees of the clinic? Safety of all involved is a concern.

I wonder how religious people would feel if every time they went to church, there was a group of spittle-laden atheists at the door, waving pictures of the spaghetti monster and screaming insulting things in their faces...

Or,

It might discourage firebombings because the attackers would get hurt too.

Everyone has the right to self-expression.

Everyone.

Period.

a reply to: beezzer

Everyone has the right to self-expression.

Indeed

Paul Hill Days: The Re-Enactment
In the summer of 2007, a group of white men reenacted the 1994 murder of an abortion provider and his bodyguard (and military veteran) in front of a small group, including children, in hopes of indoctrinating them into their violent, misogynistic ideology. They glorified the anti-choice terrorist as a martyr:

Paul Hill should have been given a parade. He should have been honored in our schools, honored from our pulpits, honored from our government institutions, honored with a key to the city. [Cheers] He should have been welcomed with it as a hero. Instead, he was arrested and thrown in jail.
bebinn.tumblr.com...

a reply to: windword

Desn't matter if it;
Pro-Abortion
Anti-Abortion
Pro-gun
Anti-gun
Westboro
Tea Party
Occupy
The United Soup-Spoon Makers of Moose-Knuckle Idaho!

Everyone has the right.