Skip to main content

View Diary: Reporters: Most Supreme Court justices view Massachusetts' abortion clinic buffer zones skeptically (302 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Certainly true inside the clinic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Crashing Vor, VClib

    Not so much on the public sidewalk, which is the area that's relevant in this case

    •  So fine (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      One Opinion, Old Sailor

      Ban the clinic workers discussing abortion or persuading the clients or engaging with the protestors in the buffer zone. That's pretty much best practice anyway.

      Hopefully, they'd still be allowed to say something like "Welcome. Come right this way."?

      And obviously once they're off the sidewalk, they can do whatever they want. Preferably in the clinic, where the woman intended to go to take care of whatever business she came for.

      Of course, the only reason the clinic workers (or the volunteer escorts) need to say anything is because the women have to walk the gauntlet of rabid screaming assholes to get to the clinic in the first place. When the protesters aren't they, they just walk in and talk inside.

      The Empire never ended.

      by thejeff on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 06:35:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  As I said elsewhere, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        A more obvious solution (and one that may be the outcome) is saying that you can have a buffer zone of a few feet -- close enough so that the protesters can be heard, but enough distance to lessen the ability to get physical or block the entrance.

        The 35 foot buffer zone looks like government is trying to prevent the protesters from being heard by women outside the clinic.  That's not permissible under the First Amendment. Government can't say, "We're going to pass a law making it more difficult for a particular message to be heard."  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site