This week the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision ruled that there is a free speech right guaranteed in the Constitution to shove pregnant women. What after all are the buffer zones for except against harassment of doctors and patients. After all, the law was enacted in “response to a history of harassment and violence at abortion clinics in Massachusetts, including a shooting rampage at two facilities in 1994.”
We know the ruling will lead to more pushing and shoving of pregnant women who want health care. We know it will lead to doctors being less safe. We know that it will mean more violence, because violent groups with a history of violence attempting to do violence to women (and there’s no other way to call forcing them to remain pregnant against their will).
Freedom!
As Voltaire would have said about this ruling, “I may not agree with your shoving a pregnant woman, but I will defend to death your right to do it.”
I’ve never understood the anti-abortion crowd. Yes, abortion may not be the perfect solution, but it is something that should be available. The anti-abortion crowd reminds me of that goofy church that show up at military funerals and makes asses of themselves over gay people. The Old Testament crowd is just plain whacky.
Nothing prevented Ruth Bader-Ginsburg from writing a concurring opinion. Yet she signed on to the majority opinion.
Maybe she just doesn’t have enough of a background in issues involving the First Amendment and rights of women.
Do not expect the corrupted Dems to stand up for women or anyone else. We need to build movements that will not stand for this kind of outrageous abuse against women. B/c we all have sex, but it is only women who have to do the perp walk for the “freedom” of the ignorant and malicious right wing superstitionists.
As far as I know, shoving is still assault. In baseball, you can get in the umpire’s face, but if you touch him you’re in serious trouble. It’ll be interesting to see how this ruling plays out — for sure, we can expect more aggressive protests at abortion clinics — but unwanted physical touching is still a crime and if protesters block access you can call the police.
In WA we don’t have buffer zone laws that this ruling will affect. The affected laws were for public property. Planned Parenthood in Spokane has to have a fenced parking lot on private property to keep the crazies out. Trespassing laws don’t have a first amendment problem.I would like to see this decision apply to free speech zones like Bush used.
I don’t like giving anti-abortion crazies a win, but there is another solution (parking lots on private property) and free speech should be broadly protected. I hope this precedent applies to free speech from the left.
re 5 — “I hope this precedent applies to free speech from the left.”
To the Right, freedom of speech means preventing the Left’s freedom of speech. It’s true. That’s why they always feel victimized. They will see no contradiction in Bush’s ‘free speech zones’ and their feeling that trampling on others free speech is their constitutional prerogative.
If this country wants to go all Biblical, I’d say ‘an eye for an eye’ works for me.
@1, Yeah…how can anyone be against baby killing?
7
I take it you’re on the other side of the issue.
@3 “B/c we all have sex”
Republican males don’t. Nobody will have sex with them. Not even Republican women. So Republican males never get anybody knocked up. That’s why it’s easy for them to be against abortion.
@7 Don’t confuse fetuses with babies. They aren’t the same thing. Nobody is for baby killing, except rightwing militarists who want to bomb every third world village that hasn’t been bombed yet.
“for sure, we can expect more aggressive protests at abortion clinics”
Sooner or later it’ll dawn on them to open carry at clinic protests.
Liberals love abortion because they do not believe that anything in life should have consequences and also that up until a child is born they are disposable.
@12 And Republicans believe human life is disposable after it’s born. See, e.g., cannon fodder, cheap labor, voting against food stamps and making it a crime to feed the hungry, etc.