Author Topic: Buffer Zones vs SCOTUS  (Read 670 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online shnozzola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1965
  • Darwins +110/-2
Buffer Zones vs SCOTUS
« on: January 15, 2014, 06:11:22 PM »
Quote
Fourteen years ago, the court upheld Colorado's 8-foot "floating" buffer zones around individuals to protect patients and staff entering and exiting these clinics. Since then, buffer zones have prevented demonstrators from closely approaching patients and staff without permission.
But the issue is back before a different and more conservative Supreme Court.

Today "The Supremes" heard arguments on the constitutional right to have/not have buffer zones at abortion clinics.  Nina Totenberg article worth a listen.

This from before:
http://www.npr.org/2013/12/20/255870199/supreme-court-considers-legality-of-abortion-clinic-buffer-zones

This available at 7pm tonight EST
http://www.npr.org/2014/01/15/262788943/high-court-hears-arguments-on-abortion-buffer-zones
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1265
  • Darwins +132/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: Buffer Zones vs SCOTUS
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2014, 06:18:46 PM »
I think women's right to seek medical care should trump the other's perceived right to proselytize to them. 
It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long.  But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Buffer Zones vs SCOTUS
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2014, 10:05:43 AM »
They picked about the most benign person to bring the case, but the history there has been anything but benign.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/01/15/supreme_court_hears_abortion_clinic_buffer_zone_case_the_judges_should_uphold.html
Quote
Protesters "wore Boston Police Department hats and shirts and stationed themselves, carrying clipboards, at the garage entrance," demanding that patients give them personal information. Protesters would attack clinic escorts with umbrellas.

I think it should be legal to drive over such people to get to your medical appointment.   

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13027
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Buffer Zones vs SCOTUS
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2014, 01:04:23 PM »
They picked about the most benign person to bring the case, but the history there has been anything but benign.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/01/15/supreme_court_hears_abortion_clinic_buffer_zone_case_the_judges_should_uphold.html
Quote
Protesters "wore Boston Police Department hats and shirts and stationed themselves, carrying clipboards, at the garage entrance," demanding that patients give them personal information. Protesters would attack clinic escorts with umbrellas.

I think it should be legal to drive over such people to get to your medical appointment.   



Isn't impersonating law enforcement a crime? Sure is where I live.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Buffer Zones vs SCOTUS
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2014, 05:03:19 PM »
If that is free speech, then holding up a compressed air boat horn to their ear and holding down the button is also would be free speech, no?
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Buffer Zones vs SCOTUS
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2014, 09:24:20 AM »
If that is free speech, then holding up a compressed air boat horn to their ear and holding down the button is also would be free speech, no?

well, see, they got this really nice old lady who is very friendly and just wants to have a nice quiet conversation with people to convince them her view is right to file the suit.  So while the reality is this appeal is for the whackos and thugs, the seemingly reasonable senior citizen is the public face of it.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Buffer Zones vs SCOTUS
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2014, 09:46:37 AM »

well, see, they got this really nice old lady who is very friendly and just wants to have a nice quiet conversation with people to convince them her view is right to file the suit.  So while the reality is this appeal is for the whackos and thugs, the seemingly reasonable senior citizen is the public face of it.

What? Religious people using disingenuous tactics to try to make their viewpoint law?!!!


I'm shocked, shocked that there is gambling in this establishment.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Buffer Zones vs SCOTUS
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2014, 10:39:06 AM »
The thing is, for all that they want to present themselves as just representing kind old ladies who just want to talk, the fact of the matter is that it's incredibly easy for the other side to pull out one of hundreds of examples of people who are not kind old ladies who just want to talk - and indeed, where the lack of a buffer zone would effectively create an atmosphere of pure intimidation, which freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to do.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Buffer Zones vs SCOTUS
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2014, 11:43:20 AM »
Esquire's Charles Pierce on the matter:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/massachusetts-reproductive-clinic-buffer-zone-case-011614

Quote
And having watched Occupy demonstrators get pepper-sprayed, and rousted with considerable force from the public parks, and having been herded into "free-speech zones" at political conventions, I am disinclined to care very much about a relatively minor inconvenience imposed generally on a debate in which one side literally has a body count behind it.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12544
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Buffer Zones vs SCOTUS
« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2014, 03:05:33 PM »
I particularly liked this comment on the article:
Quote
So the Court will be hunky-dory with labor unions or Occupy activists blocking the entrance to businesses? Why am I skeptical of that?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online shnozzola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1965
  • Darwins +110/-2
Re: Buffer Zones vs SCOTUS
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2014, 09:20:19 PM »
Rachel Maddow just reminded everyone that the SCOTUS has a 250 ft. buffer zone around it to stop protestors.  Hmmm.

edit:  should they recuse themselves?
« Last Edit: January 22, 2014, 09:23:09 PM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2462
  • Darwins +131/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Buffer Zones vs SCOTUS
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2014, 07:46:48 AM »
A sidewalk is a public easement for anyone to use when they walk down the street. Anyone has a legal right to use a sidewalk.

Is it legal for a homeowner to stand in his front yard, very close to the sidewalk, and yell at people as they walk by telling them that they are committing a sin by using that sidewalk? Is that type of intimidation permitted? Does his First Amendment right trump the rights of others to use the sidewalk? Might potential users of the sidewalk feel threatened and avoid exercising their rights to pass over that portion of sidewalk? Would the homeowner be arrested for creating a public disturbance? A noise violation? Would he be sent for a pysch evaluation for doing this every day?


John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6822
  • Darwins +551/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Buffer Zones vs SCOTUS
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2014, 08:55:39 AM »
These people, and many other who protest about other things[1] always strike me as long on rhetoric and principal and short on practicality.

Let’s say that they are held individually responsible for their actions at a very high level. This is not unfair because that is the standard to which the mother will be held.

Let us take one ardent protester and say to them “OK. You do not wish this woman to have an abortion. The cost of the child that she then produces will fall in its entirety to you personally and no one else. You personally will be responsible for all and any expenses, food, clothes, baby-sitting, all and every medical cost regardless of the state in which the child is born, education, welfare throughout life and pension and burial. And all this will be taken, by taxation, from you personally. If you have no taxable income, then your assets to the value will be seized by the state and used for that purpose. When your assets run out, you will be declared bankrupt. To start the process, we will take from you an amount of cash to represent any lost earnings by the mother and any cost to the state of the mother’s giving birth. Now, how do you feel about that woman having an abortion? I have a water-tight contract for you to sign.”

These people are the same people who do not give their money away and follow Christ as prescribed. They are mindless arseh*les who think that just because they are like that, then everyone else should be. Bigotry written large.
 1. and whether I agree with whatever they are protesting about does not matter.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Buffer Zones vs SCOTUS
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2014, 10:25:48 AM »
A sidewalk is a public easement for anyone to use when they walk down the street. Anyone has a legal right to use a sidewalk.

Is it legal for a homeowner to stand in his front yard, very close to the sidewalk, and yell at people as they walk by telling them that they are committing a sin by using that sidewalk? Is that type of intimidation permitted? Does his First Amendment right trump the rights of others to use the sidewalk? Might potential users of the sidewalk feel threatened and avoid exercising their rights to pass over that portion of sidewalk? Would the homeowner be arrested for creating a public disturbance? A noise violation? Would he be sent for a pysch evaluation for doing this every day?

Reminds me when I lived in Wheaton. A man had attack dogs that would throw themselves at the fence that was inches from the sidewalk, and said dogs would bark and growl at anyone using the sidewalk. The grass in his yard was dead the two feet in front of the fence. One day I had off, I proceeded to walk up and down in front of his house with a YoYo. The dogs actually got hoarse from barking so much and exhausted from throwing themselves at the fence to get to me, and he came out to yell at me a few times. I don't know why; after all I was silently playing with a Yo-Yo on a public sidewalk.

I really don't think he got the point of my actions. I really was hoping he'd call the cops.


An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.