It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: windword

Survivors of the abortion holocaust?

Please.




I'm taking it that's a "pro-life" spun title for people who have had abortions...........I don't know.

The point of the video, in my opinion, is the lady, doesn't matter what side she's on, up in the faces of the other protesters with a bullhorn.

The argument for this SCOTUS ruling was that people wanted to gently counsel women entering clinic, and the 35 foot buffer zone put an unconstitutional burden on their rights to do so. The plaintiff said that they didn't want to have to yell, that's why they needed to get up close.




posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Apparently this decision is only affecting the Massachusetts law.

It seems many other States have similar laws and all directed at abortion clinic protesting.

Makes me wonder if many of the "violence" at abortion clinic protests were staged to get these laws in effect.

There are conspiracies.

Now what happens to the other State laws?



The Supreme Court on narrow grounds struck down a Massachusetts law Thursday creating no-protest "buffer zones" on public property surrounding health clinics that perform abortions.

In what is a free speech dispute that touched on the larger political and social controversy over abortion, the court ruled unanimously.

It did not strike down all such laws, but the ruling gives room for the state to go back and craft new, less restrictive protest zones.

Justices strike down abortion clinic buffer zone






Laws in the United States

At the federal level in the United States, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), makes it an offense to use intimidation or physical force – such as forming a blockade – in order to prevent a person from entering a facility which provides reproductive healthcare or a place of worship. The law also creates specific penalties for destroying, or causing damage to, either of these types of building.

California, New York, and Washington have each established their own version of FACE.[8] Other states have instituted several different kinds of measures designed to protect clinics, their employees, and patients:[9]

11 states make it illegal to obstruct the entrance to a clinic: California, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Washington.

Six states prohibit making threats toward a clinic's staff or patients: California, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin. Two states, Maine and Washington, also ban harassment by telephone.

Four states ban property damage to a clinic: California, Oregon, New York, and Washington.

One state, Maine, has enacted a noise regulation pertaining to activity outside of a clinic, and also made it an offense to intentionally release a substance with an unpleasant odour inside of it.

One state, North Carolina, prohibits weapon possession during a demonstration outside of a clinic.

Legal protection of access to abortion



Hmmm.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
So anti-abortionists can now get right into the faces of women that are facing a difficult decision? Yes, pro-choice is a difficult choice for a lot of women. Very emotional and now they can come at them like Gunny Hartman?



This won't end well.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: jimmyx

But yet we have no problem killing life that have no voice or choices.


that's right, just like the government has no say to what you do with your scrotum and penis, the government has no say as to what a woman can do with her own reproductive organs



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
So anti-abortionists can now get right into the faces of women that are facing a difficult decision? Yes, pro-choice is a difficult choice for a lot of women. Very emotional and now they can come at them like Gunny Hartman?



This won't end well.


betcha there won't be assault-rifled freedom and liberty lovers, standing in front of abortions clinics protecting the rights of women....now if you are a rancher grazing steers on government land, you get a whole army out there to protect you



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid




This won't end well.


No, it certainly won't.

There are some types of protests that have extreme risk of violence breaking out due to the strong emotions involved on both sides of the coin, the abortion clinic protests are one of them.

I can't wait to see what's going to happen when the Westboro Church takes this ruling and runs with it.... and the Klu Klux Klan.... and the anti-gay protesters... etc.

There's a reason why law enforcement has to keep both parties at a somewhat sensical distance from one another when a protest or gathering is going on. Both parties can freely stand on their soapboxes screaming at the top of their lungs, they just can't get "up close and personal" with each other... because it's well understood that's when the risk for an escalation of violence increases tenfold.

It's just common friggin' sense.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: intrepid




This won't end well.



I can't wait to see what's going to happen when the Westboro Church takes this ruling and runs with it.... and the Klu Klux Klan.... and the anti-gay protesters... etc.


So what your saying is protesting should have limitations except when it's for something you agree with?

As long as there are no physical confrontations people should be able to say what they want where ever they want.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone




So what your saying is protesting should have limitations except when it's for something you agree with?


Did I say that anywhere in my post ?
Please show me where I stated that.

Thank you.



As long as there are no physical confrontations people should be able to say what they want where ever they want.


Did I say they shouldn't be allowed to say what they want anywhere in my post ?
Please show me where I stated that.

Thank you.




Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

You implied it.

Many have.

Sure, protests are all well and good, but (oh my goodness!) these protests are "different". these protests are "violent".

Would the same apply to Occupy? Or any other type of protest for that matter.

Protests all have the inherent capacity for violence. The nature of protest is to assemble because they disagree with some issue.

Once limitations are set for one type of protest, then all types of protest become susceptible to limitations and inhibitions.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

So you are OK with protesters getting right in the faces of women dealing with a highly emotional decision then?



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

You didn't come out and say it but you only mentioned hate groups and as nasty as some people are every protester should be able to let their voice be heard.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: beezzer

So you are OK with protesters getting right in the faces of women dealing with a highly emotional decision then?



No, but I don't need the government legislating where and where I can't talk to people.

Much like the WBC going to funerals. It's completely deplorable, but once we start telling people where they can stand to voice their opinions, where does the line get drawn?

Now we have freedom of speech zones and places where you can't fly a sign or you'll be ARRESTED and charged. Your whole life could be ruined by the act of peaceful protesting.

Understandably abortion protesters are very committed and get out of hand every now and then. We have a way to deal wit that it's called police. They can be arrested if they harass you the same as they could before.

~Tenth



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: beezzer

So you are OK with protesters getting right in the faces of women dealing with a highly emotional decision then?



A highly emotional issue. Could you provide me with a list of protests that aren't emotionally charged?

As long as the rights of the women aren't infringed, then the protesters can say whatever they wish to illustrate their cause.

Abortion is an emotional debate.
So are protests for unions.
Saving the trees.
Saving the whales.
Education.
Gun rights.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
Understandably abortion protesters are very committed and get out of hand every now and then.

~Tenth


I don't find that "understandable" at all.

And what about the rights of these women? This isn't "free speech"(which you guys don't seem to understand what the 1st REALLY means), it's harassment.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid


The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.


en.wikipedia.org...

Bold is mine.

This most definitely is a 1st Amendment issue.

Like free speech, like PC, once we start allowing limitations to some assemblies, then all assemblies are in jeopardy.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.


en.wikipedia.org...

Bold is mine.


"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech"

Mine is closer to the truth.


Like free speech, like PC, once we start allowing limitations to some assemblies, then all assemblies are in jeopardy.


Yeah, I keep hearing this mantra. Guess what? It doesn't move me anymore. Fear doesn't.
edit on 28-6-2014 by intrepid because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2014 by intrepid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

It's not about fear.

It's about the freedom of expression.

“Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost.”
― Neil Gaiman



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: intrepid


The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.


en.wikipedia.org...

Bold is mine.

This most definitely is a 1st Amendment issue.

Like free speech, like PC, once we start allowing limitations to some assemblies, then all assemblies are in jeopardy.


nope..."peaceably" is the key word.....the history of these demonstrations have been deadly violence, harassment, bodily assaults, and property damage...for the supreme court to say they can get closer to do this, is insanity, and stupidity. this strikes terror and fear for their own life, in any woman that has to run this gauntlet of lunatics, plain and simple...and the supreme court is advocating for it to be this way. they want this to happen to women....to all the women out there, I feel sorry that your own government will not protect you.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: intrepid

It's not about fear.

It's about the freedom of expression.

“Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost.”
― Neil Gaiman


really? if I burn your house down, is that my freedom of expression?....can I stand a few feet from your front door and yell and scream at you about you being a murderer?...can I publish where your kids go to school, and your phone number on a wanted poster that reads "dead or alive"?



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

So we should deny the ability to assemble because some protests in the past have been violent?

We should deny 1st Amendment rights for everyone because some chose to get violent?

Or are you just targeting anti-abortion protesters because you disagree with them.




top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join