Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMass. Buffer Zone For Abortion Clinic Patients Struck Down
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/26/mccullen-v-coakley_n_5533136.htmlsnip:
The Supreme Court ruled on McCullen v. Coakley Thursday, striking down a Massachusetts law requiring protesters to stay at least 35 feet from an abortion clinic's entrance and walkways.
In a unanimous opinion, the court held that such buffer zones violate First Amendment free speech rights.
"This decision is incredibly disappointing and ignores the very real threats of violence and intimidation that abortion providers and their patients face every day," Saporta said. "Since 1977, there have been 8 murders, 17 attempted murders, 42 bombings, 181 arsons, and thousands of incidents of criminal activities.
My guess is that Supreme Court Justices do not allow people to videotape, scream, and stalk them as they go to work. What a disastrous decision.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1282 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Mass. Buffer Zone For Abortion Clinic Patients Struck Down (Original Post)
kairos12
Jun 2014
OP
Actually it is a misleading headline. Typical of msm. 8 feet is ok, 35 ft not
lostincalifornia
Jun 2014
#1
No the court didn't strike down buffer zones, it found (9-0) that a 35' zone here was too large. n/t
PoliticAverse
Jun 2014
#2
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)1. Actually it is a misleading headline. Typical of msm. 8 feet is ok, 35 ft not
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)2. No the court didn't strike down buffer zones, it found (9-0) that a 35' zone here was too large. n/t
frazzled
(18,402 posts)3. Just the Massachusetts law
Other places prevent such harrassment by other means:
Roberts said that as an alternative approach, Massachusetts could consider an ordinance such as one adopted in New York City that "makes it a crime 'to follow and harass another person within 15 feet of the premises of a reproductive health care facility.' "
The state could also adopt a law that makes it illegal to attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with anyone because they're either coming from or heading toward a health clinic, he said.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/26/325806464/states-cant-mandate-buffer-zones-around-abortion-clinics-high-court-says
I'm disappointed by this, but given that the decision was unanimous, with even the liberal women joining in, the idea that there are other ways to successfully prevent women from being harrassed at clinics must be the case. This isn't the end, I think, of pushback at the harrassers. It's just that the Massachusetts law was too narrow.