I didn't realize we had to pay to use our rights.
I don't have to pay for other private businesses to protect their patrons and staff... why is an abortion clinic any different?
Banks and jewelry stores have a potential for violence and robbery, but again, shouldering the cost of protection is on the business, not the public. So I ask, why is an abortion clinic any different?
edit - fixed quote nesting
The public cannot be held financially responsible for a private entity choosing to hang a shingle. If a business requires police protection to conduct business, then it needs to pay for it.
Ding ding.
An exception I can think is if they are being so rowdy people can't focus inside due to the sound. I would think at that point you violate noise ordinances. It isn't about abortion at that poing
Freedom has good and bad, but its better to have it.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,509
- 47,993
- 136
Sorry sport, but the violent and crazy portion of the "pro-life" crowd is a bit more established then "a few psychos bombing clinics." Spare us the "few bad apples" rebuttal, that dog don't hunt. Given the kind of violence and harassment clinics and their workers endure on a normal basis I would say ANY kind of onlooker within 500ft of a clinic deserves scrutiny. Law abiding medical professionals can't take anything for granted these days, thanks to the nuts. The fundie Baptist packing a loaded .357 isn't going to set himself up a separate protest area for the ease of law enforcement or bodyguards to keep an eye on him. It would be nice if those who don't support women here could at least bring themselves to denounce the murder committed by their compatriots, but we rarely see that. What is more common, sadly, is a grudging sense of understanding over the acts committed, just look at the fallout after Tiller's assassination.
If anti-choice types just left it all at 'speech,' then there would be less of an issue (let's forget the assassinations for a moment) during protests. The problem is too many of these people expressing their freedom of speech seem to think it covers verbal and physical assault. Clearly, it doesn't. I've done the escort bit myself, and have been spit on, assailed with projectiles, and verbally abused by those intent on making strange women adhere to their own personal beliefs. Very Taliban-esque I've always thought. So tell me, what of those actions I just listed are protected by Free Speech?
Regardless, please don't pretend like I didn't just post support for allowing protests.
Nah, I'll leave that for the right wing hacks still sporting hard-ons over Rev. Wright. My call for allowing protests, albeit with pronounced law enforcement observation, is more a position of judicious caution. Abortion protesters have proven time and time again that they can't be relied on to behave in a civil manner - in some worse case scenarios they actually commit serious crimes. It's a messed up situation, and we have the abortion ideologues to thank for it.
Gosh, I sure would like to know, what with me not having any political affiliation and all... But I'm sure you'd hope so, as that's what your kind does to invalidate different opinions. Slap on a label. Dismiss. Rinse, repeat. It's so much easier than trying to rationalize my input, which incidentally draws from personal experience living in the bible belt, mere blocks away from a clinic which provided abortions. I could go into more detail here, but I'm not interested in some pissing contest, this thread is about picketing clinics.
You can re-iterate it all you want, that doesn't make it correct. Anti-choice advocates want to repeal Roe v Wade, ergo they want to remove the legal ability of women to choose to abort or not. The right to a procedure, and the procedure itself, are not one and the same. I don't expect you to understand this, those who don't think women are supposed to be able to make that kind of decision have been struggling with the concept for some time.
Have you heard the phrase "getting a little ahead of yourself" before? Next time you should read posts a little more carefully - I didn't make 'claims to the contrary,' as you put it, as Medellon didn't reply with a boogeyman comment.
But hey, since you brought it up! I don't feel I have a boogeyman of sorts, but I can admit to a few fears. The most germane to this thread would be my fear of a once honorable political culture being reduced to abject hypocrisy, utilizing it to achieve policy, and allowing it to represent our country.
Case in point:
If the hallowed right of Free Speech can be rolled over so that Grand Emperor Cheney and his Cohorts can be spared the sight of political dissent during an election season, then it can also be modified to ensure the safety of those seeking and providing legal medical services. I didn't hear too many conservatives gripe about the Free Speech Zones of the Bush Admin. Should be an easy pill to swallow given that to date, no one has ever been killed at a GOP convention or rally due to social views, whereas with abortion clinics... :roll:
So, let me re-iterate - I believe picketing should be allowed, but tightly monitored. We now live in an age where a law abiding doctor can be assassinated during a church service, and millions of Americans voice grudging approval. Screaming over the sanctity of freedom of speech as a reaction rings quite hollow.
Sorry, you lost me right about here "Sport". You see, that's right up the same alley as racial profiling. "Most people who are in jail are black, so blacks deserve scrutiny."
Sorry son, THAT dog don't hunt
.Originally posted by: jbourne77
Sorry, you lost me right about here "Sport". You see, that's right up the same alley as racial profiling. "Most people who are in jail are black, so blacks deserve scrutiny."
Sorry son, THAT dog don't hunt
Yep. Thank god these whackjobs trying to restrict constitutional freedoms will never even smell a position of power that gives them the opportunity to do so.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,809
- 6,363
- 126
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Sorry, you lost me right about here "Sport". You see, that's right up the same alley as racial profiling. "Most people who are in jail are black, so blacks deserve scrutiny."
Sorry son, THAT dog don't hunt
Yep. Thank god these whackjobs trying to restrict constitutional freedoms will never even smell a position of power that gives them the opportunity to do so.
Ah yes, like Pursuit of Happiness or General Welfare. Persistent Intimidation is not a Constitutional Right.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Sorry, you lost me right about here "Sport". You see, that's right up the same alley as racial profiling. "Most people who are in jail are black, so blacks deserve scrutiny."
Sorry son, THAT dog don't hunt
Yep. Thank god these whackjobs trying to restrict constitutional freedoms will never even smell a position of power that gives them the opportunity to do so.
Ah yes, like Pursuit of Happiness or General Welfare. Persistent Intimidation is not a Constitutional Right.
Neither I nor OCguy has advocated "Persistent Intimidation", so Operation Strawman: FAIL. Hell, I've already said that I would support legislating extraordinary punishment for anyone turning to violence, not unlike that which is levied for hate crimes.
LOL! So you think a vague thing like "Pursuit of happiness" (Hey, I have a right to run up and punch you because I think it makes me happy!) would trump an amendment that guarantees the right to assemble, and the right to free speech at that assembly?
Until they break a law, they are exercising their rights. If a protester gets violent, lock 'em up.
Scabs crossing picket lines are more abused and threatened than a woman going in to a an extermination clinic.
Not at all. Public land is public land. The right to assemble on public land is absolutely something that should be protected. Normally I prefer to get into the nuances of a topic, but not with something so fundamental. Once we make excuses left and right it leads us down to a slippery slope. Hell I already think that we have started to go down that (designated 'protest' zones 1+ mile away from certain political events).
If I wanted I have every right to park in front of you house (assuming you live next to a public road), and take pictures of you walking in and outside every day just because I can.
Completely disrespectful, tasteless, and a waste of time? Absolutely.
But should it be illegal? Nope.
Please elaborate. I want to make sure I'm clear on your point before responding to it.
Edit - fixed quote nesting (trying hard, mods!)
And "Pursuit of happiness" doesnt? What if marrying 4 women concurrently makes me happy?
No reason to argue this, the law is firmly in place. Public land is public land.
You are right, it does have limits. You have to assemble on public land, with no violence.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter