• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Strikes Down Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is a victory for free speech, but likely will make the abortion debate more contentious.:peace

Supreme Court Strikes Down Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that barred protests near abortion clinics.
The law, enacted in 2007, created 35-foot buffer zones around entrances to abortion clinics. State officials said the law was a response to a history of harassment and violence at abortion clinics in Massachusetts, including a shooting rampage at two facilities in 1994.
The law was challenged on First Amendment grounds by opponents of abortion who said they sought to have quiet conversations with women entering clinics to tell them about alternatives to abortion.
The court was unanimous about the bottom line but divided on the reasoning. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote a relatively narrow majority opinion. He was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. He suggested that the state could pursue other alternatives.
Justice Antonin Scalia, in a concurrence joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, said the majority’s approach was too tentative. The law, he said, is “unconstitutional root and branch.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed a separate concurrence.

 
This is great news for anyone that truly believe sin free speech. Most liberals claim they do but don't so will view this as bad news.


"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

-Voltaire

If you can't appreciate that quote, regardless of your political views then I have no use for you.
 
Jack Hays said:
This is a victory for free speech, but likely will make the abortion debate more contentious.:peace

Supreme Court Strikes Down Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that barred protests near abortion clinics.
The law, enacted in 2007, created 35-foot buffer zones around entrances to abortion clinics. State officials said the law was a response to a history of harassment and violence at abortion clinics in Massachusetts, including a shooting rampage at two facilities in 1994.
The law was challenged on First Amendment grounds by opponents of abortion who said they sought to have quiet conversations with women entering clinics to tell them about alternatives to abortion.
The court was unanimous about the bottom line but divided on the reasoning. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote a relatively narrow majority opinion. He was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. He suggested that the state could pursue other alternatives.
Justice Antonin Scalia, in a concurrence joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, said the majority’s approach was too tentative. The law, he said, is “unconstitutional root and branch.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed a separate concurrence.
Click to expand...

I think that was the right thing to do.

Maybe it'll entice some anti-abortion people to stand outside and offer to pay a woman's medical expenses and adopt her baby.
 
MaggieD said:
I think that was the right thing to do.

Maybe it'll entice some anti-abortion people to stand outside and offer to pay a woman's medical expenses and adopt her baby.
Click to expand...

You mean instead of being better able to harass her as she enters and exits the building because they can get right up in her face?
 
Deuce said:
You mean instead of being better able to harass her as she enters and exits the building because they can get right up in her face?
Click to expand...

Abortion clinics deserve no more protection than we give our war dead . . . a/k/a SCOTUS ruling of 2011 re Westboro Baptist Church.
 
MaggieD said:
Abortion clinics deserve no more protection than we give our war dead . . . a/k/a SCOTUS ruling of 2011 re Westboro Baptist Church.
Click to expand...

I think citizens deserve better privacy protections.
 
Deuce said:
You mean instead of being better able to harass her as she enters and exits the building because they can get right up in her face?
Click to expand...

SO I take it you're not in favor of any protesters being able to harass anyone? You have the same problem with the Occupy protestors harassing millionare and billionare businessmen? i doubt you would.

The law must be applied equally in all cases, not just when it serves one's political agenda. Either all protestors must be allowed to stand on the sidewalk or they all must be in a free speech zone. I'd prefer the former.
 
MaggieD said:
Abortion clinics deserve no more protection than we give our war dead . . . a/k/a SCOTUS ruling of 2011 re Westboro Baptist Church.
Click to expand...

I agree with you sentiment but I think this law was intended to protect the patient, not the clinic. The other issue is to "protect" the grieving and not the corpse.
 
DB20 said:
SO I take it you're not in favor of any protesters being able to harass anyone? You have the same problem with the Occupy protestors harassing millionare and billionare businessmen? i doubt you would.

The law must be applied equally in all cases, not just when it serves one's political agenda. Either all protestors must be allowed to stand on the sidewalk or they all must be in a free speech zone. I'd prefer the former.
Click to expand...

"Free speech zones" were created, to my knowledge, in reaction to protests of government actions. I don't think protests should be restricted from government officials, but private citizens (yes, even the Monopoly Guy) deserve greater protections.
 
MaggieD said:
So do the families and friends at military funerals. It's the price we pay for freedom.
Click to expand...

It's a clear case of one party intruding on the privacy and freedom of another party, no different than harassment. That should always be illegal.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I agree with you sentiment but I think this law was intended to protect the patient, not the clinic. The other issue is to "protect" the grieving and not the corpse.
Click to expand...

When "the patient" decides to walk into a door that says, "Family Planning Clinic" or "Abortions While You Wait," she abdicates her right to privacy. Doesn't she?
 
MaggieD said:
When "the patient" decides to walk into a door that says, "Family Planning Clinic" or "Abortions While You Wait," she abdicates her right to privacy. Doesn't she?
Click to expand...

Of course not. What a ridiculous notion. If you walk into a movie theater to watch the latest Transformers abomination, do you cede your right to privacy? Utterly absurd. I guess that whole patient confidentiality thing also flies right out the window when a medical procedure you find distasteful comes up.

I swear, what the topic of abortion does to some people's intelligence...
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
It's a clear case of one party intruding on the privacy and freedom of another party, no different than harassment. That should always be illegal.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Westboro Baptist. That is the price we pay for freedom.

SCOTUS is being consistent. That's exactly what we expect from them.
 
MaggieD said:
Tell that to Westboro Baptist. That is the price we pay for freedom.

SCOTUS is being consistent. That's exactly what we expect from them.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I believe that Westboro is guilty of harassment.
 
Cardinal said:
Of course not. What a ridiculous notion. If you walk into a movie theater to watch the latest Transformers abomination, do you cede your right to privacy? Utterly absurd. I guess that whole patient confidentiality thing also flies right out the window when a medical procedure you find distasteful comes up.

I swear, what the topic of abortion does to some people's intelligence...
Click to expand...

I agree with your last line. Me? I'm ProChoice.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes, and I believe that Westboro is guilty of harassment.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. I think it's awful. SCOTUS probably thinks it's awful, too. Allowing freedom is not always convenient, warm and fuzzy.
 
MaggieD said:
When "the patient" decides to walk into a door that says, "Family Planning Clinic" or "Abortions While You Wait," she abdicates her right to privacy. Doesn't she?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't use the word abdicate, but she has a higher level of privacy after she walks into that door. Anything going on inside is just an assumption to those outside.
 
MaggieD said:
I think that was the right thing to do.

Maybe it'll entice some anti-abortion people to stand outside and offer to pay a woman's medical expenses and adopt her baby.
Click to expand...

Actually, this has been known to happen. In my community a home was purchased across the street from the PP clinic to provide pre-natal and also adoption services.
 
nota bene said:
Actually, this has been known to happen. In my community a home was purchased across the street from the PP clinic to provide pre-natal and also adoption services.
Click to expand...

That is awesome!
 
MaggieD said:
I agree with that. I think it's awful. SCOTUS probably thinks it's awful, too. Allowing freedom is not always convenient, warm and fuzzy.
Click to expand...

Harassment is not freedom of speech. If it is, then harassment is moot.
 
nota bene said:
Actually, this has been known to happen. In my community a home was purchased across the street from the PP clinic to provide pre-natal and also adoption services.
Click to expand...

An amusing action, if pointless if intended to be a protest to the PP clinic, since pro-choice people have absolutely zilch against both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom