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.
originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: windword
Survivors of the abortion holocaust?
Please.
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
originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: jimmyx
But yet we have no problem killing life that have no voice or choices.
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.
This won't end well.
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.
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?
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?
originally posted by: tothetenthpower
Understandably abortion protesters are very committed and get out of hand every now and then.
~Tenth
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.
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.
Like free speech, like PC, once we start allowing limitations to some assemblies, then all assemblies are in jeopardy.
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.
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