Appellate court upholds Massachusetts abortion protest law

Jan 11, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Wisconsin Gazette

A federal appeals court has again affirmed the constitutionality of a 2007 Massachusetts law that bars protests in 35-foot "buffer zones" around abortion clinic entrances, exits and driveways.

Comments
1 - 10 of 10 Comments Last updated Jan 15, 2013

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Abortion opponents who regularly stand outside clinics in Boston, Worcester and Springfield claimed the law unfairly keeps them from engaging patients in conversations at a closer distance.

Engaging patients???

Unfortunately for the religious nut cases the law recognizes the difference between engaging and harassing. Bummer for the nut cases.
Ocean56

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Morgana 9 wrote:
Abortion opponents who regularly stand outside clinics in Boston, Worcester and Springfield claimed the law unfairly keeps them from engaging patients in conversations at a closer distance.
Engaging patients???
Unfortunately for the religious nut cases the law recognizes the difference between engaging and harassing. Bummer for the nut cases.
Exactly, Morgana, the anti-choicers are HARASSING patients, not "engaging" them. Good for the court that upheld this MA law. Why women go to these clinics is NONE of their business.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, Morgana, the anti-choicers are HARASSING patients, not "engaging" them. Good for the court that upheld this MA law. Why women go to these clinics is NONE of their business.
Yeah, where else do protesters lineup to "engage" with people going to a doctor/medical facility to engage their "opinion" on another's private medical/physical well being?

“ABORTION KILLS A HUMAN BEING”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, Morgana, the anti-choicers are HARASSING patients, not "engaging" them. Good for the court that upheld this MA law. Why women go to these clinics is NONE of their business.
So do tell of your personal experience proving that prolifers are HARASSING patients. Since you're stating it as fact, you need to back that up dear.
My nieces go to silent protests at a planned abortionhood near them. Not once has there been an incident, in fact those incidents that do happen are few and far between. Nothing in fact to match the number of human beings slaughtered each year due to abortion. I'll wait for proof of your statement...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kaylayossi wrote:
So do tell of your personal experience proving that prolifers are HARASSING patients. Since you're stating it as fact, you need to back that up dear.
My nieces go to silent protests at a planned abortionhood near them. Not once has there been an incident, in fact those incidents that do happen are few and far between. Nothing in fact to match the number of human beings slaughtered each year due to abortion. I'll wait for proof of your statement...
Even if it is a silent protest, which I never recall having seen at an abortion clinic, the aim is to intimidate individuals from their intention of making their own decision.

Congratulations for adopting a silent and peaceable mob mentality.

This issue is a contentious one, but at present, this is an issue of personal choice. If one decides to have an abortion, then they have that right. Personally, I think those who seek to intervene in that decision in an attempt to substitute their own moral views for those of the individual are wrong. However our first amendment gives them the right to impose themselves upon those individuals seeking services.

Personally, I don't see them terribly differently from Westboro Baptist Church, and although I fervently support free speech, I think both WBC and anti-abortion protesters are wrong, and should mind their own business.

Don't like abortion, then don't get one. What someone else decides to do regarding their body and their medical choices is none of your concern.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jan 14, 2013
 
kaylayossi wrote:
Not once has there been an incident, in fact those incidents that do happen
Which is it?
Not once has there been an incident?
or
those incidents that do happen?
ginger

Scottsdale, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kaylayossi wrote:
<quoted text>
So do tell of your personal experience proving that prolifers are HARASSING patients. Since you're stating it as fact, you need to back that up dear.
My nieces go to silent protests at a planned abortionhood near them.
****Not once has there been an incident, in fact those incidents that do happen are few and far between.
***

Nothing in fact to match the number of human beings slaughtered each year due to abortion. I'll wait for proof of your statement...
Lie much? So is it "not once" or "few and far between"? You are too stupid to lie well. You probably ought to stop trying. Or not. It's what you people do, after all.

“ABORTION KILLS A HUMAN BEING”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ginger wrote:
<quoted text>
Lie much? So is it "not once" or "few and far between"? You are too stupid to lie well. You probably ought to stop trying. Or not. It's what you people do, after all.
Hi Pbf! New nic? If you read properly, not one incident has ever happened while my nieces were there. Then I stated there have been incidents, but never as many as the innocents slaughtered via abortion. Learn to read.
Demystifying liberal myth

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kaylayossi wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Pbf! New nic? If you read properly, not one incident has ever happened while my nieces were there. Then I stated there have been incidents, but never as many as the innocents slaughtered via abortion. Learn to read.
It unhinges pro-aborts whenever babies are saved from the carnage of abortuaries.

"...In the past eight years of walking outside of the abortion clinic, Vicki has counted approximately 700 women that have told her she helped to save their babies.“I think if you offer the young lady help and show her that she can do it, either raising her child or to place her child up for adoption. First you have to reach them where they are at. If they’re scared and they think they’re alone, you have to help them overcome their fears. That’s what saves children.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/rain-or-shin...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jan 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kaylayossi wrote:
Hi Pbf! New nic? If you read properly, not one incident has ever happened while my nieces were there. Then I stated there have been incidents, but never as many as the innocents slaughtered via abortion. Learn to read.
The reality remains that the prevailing law is that a fetus does not attain person-hood, and thereby acquire rights, until viability. Which is to say, the fetus must be able to carry out basic life functions (like breathing) and exist on their own without the support of the life systems of the mother.

To grant person-hood rights in utero is legally insane, as it sets up a situation wherein the rights of the mother can be in conflict with those of the fetus. How would you propose that such a situation be dealt with? Whose rights take priority? Those of the mother? Those of the fetus? Those of whichever party has a stronger change of survival?

Thankfully such cases are rare, but they do exist, and when they come up decisions need to be made in short order, it is no service to either party to legally muddy the waters in this are.

Also, just out of curiosity, do you support abortion (or abortive contraception "the morning after pill") in cases of rape or incest?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••