• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Law on Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones

Brainonska511

Brainonska511

Lifer
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-abortion-clinic-protests.html?ref=us&_r=0

The Supreme Court has struck down the abortion buffer zone law in the case of McCullen v. Coakley. However, the ruling is relatively narrow, in that it leaves open the door for states enacting measures that protect access to clinics and allows for a graded approach to those access laws (eg: if the more narrowly tailored ones don't work in practice, broader ones could come into play)

As SCOTUSBlog put it: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_26_2014?Page=2

The abortion protests ruling is relatively narrow. The Court makes clear that states can pass laws that specifically ensure access to clinics. It holds that states cannot more broadly prohibit speech on public streets and sidewalks. It also notably rejects the protesters' broadest arguments that such restrictions require strict constitutional scrutiny and are viewpoint based.

A state can go beyond narrow laws that block obstructions to clinics, and more broadly ban abortion protests, only if it builds a record showing that the narrower measures don't work.
Click to expand...

Link to opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1168_6k47.pdf
 
Last edited:
They felt that 35 ft was too far, so the state will probably make it a 10 or 15 ft buffer. That is really all they need to do, is shorten it a bit.
 
I don't have a problem with this ruling.

These rules if allowed would have lead to more "buffer zones" for other things.
 
Wonder how long before violence occurs and a similar law has to be again enacted. These laws aren't attacking free speech, they're protecting women from the violence of the psychopaths that harass them outside clinics.
 
thraashman said:
Wonder how long before violence occurs and a similar law has to be again enacted. These laws aren't attacking free speech, they're protecting women from the violence of the psychopaths that harass them outside clinics.
Click to expand...

True, but the court did suggest some alternatives, like adopting the statute used in NYC:

If the Commonwealth is particularly concerned about harassment, it could also consider an ordinance such as the one adopted in New York City that not only prohibits obstructing access to a clinic, but also makes it a crime “to follow and harass another person within 15 feet of the premises of a reproductive health care facility.” N. Y. C. Admin. Code §8– 803(a)(3) (2014)
Click to expand...
 
thraashman said:
Wonder how long before violence occurs and a similar law has to be again enacted. These laws aren't attacking free speech, they're protecting women from the violence of the psychopaths that harass them outside clinics.
Click to expand...

Its a good thing that no one has ever invented anything that allows you to commit violence from 35ft away!()🙂
 
This all depends on just how far the protestor can spit.
BAD RULING!
If that is how the court feels, I'd like to see the court impose the same rules on themselves and their privacy. I bet we have quite a few people around here that would LOVE to have the chance to spit on a supreme court justice. More than a few, actually.
 
sportage said:
This all depends on just how far the protestor can spit.
BAD RULING!
If that is how the court feels, I'd like to see the court impose the same rules on themselves and their privacy. I bet we have quite a few people around here that would LOVE to have the chance to spit on a supreme court justice. More than a few, actually.
Click to expand...

You think someone can spit 15 feet? :hmm:
 
thraashman said:
Wonder how long before violence occurs and a similar law has to be again enacted. These laws aren't attacking free speech, they're protecting women from the violence of the psychopaths that harass them outside clinics.
Click to expand...

LOL if someone is intent on doing violence no buffer zone is gonna stop them. You can't bring guns into or within 1000ft of school doesn't stop school shootings.

Anyway good ruling. "free speech zones" are getting way to prevalent and amount to no speech zones. No one should be a special snowflake and immune to criticism.
 
Why doesn't the SC rule in favor of protesters being closer on things like political protests, because didn't they rule not too long ago that protesters, like the Wal-Mart employees have to be sooo many streets away and not in the parking lots or sidewalks? Didn't they also rule on the OWS people on distance? Damn, I need to go look this up now...
 
Oldgamer said:
Why doesn't the SC rule in favor of protesters being closer on things like political protests, because didn't they rule not too long ago that protesters, like the Wal-Mart employees have to be sooo many streets away and not in the parking lots or sidewalks? Didn't they also rule on the OWS people on distance? Damn, I need to go look this up now...
Click to expand...

Abortion protesters shower 😀
 
CitizenKain said:
Hopefully this leads to more pro-life people laying down infront of moving vehicles and getting run over.
Click to expand...
They still cannot use protesting as a means to block access to clinics. And local law enforcement still has the power to lawfully order obstructers to move out of the way.
 
thraashman said:
Wonder how long before violence occurs and a similar law has to be again enacted. These laws aren't attacking free speech, they're protecting women from the violence of the psychopaths that harass them outside clinics.
Click to expand...

Hmm so if the buffer zones are removed in a stand your ground state and a prof-lifer(s) gets in the face of a pregnant woman with a CCW would she then be justified in shooting said pro-lifers? :hmm:

I see disparity of force, (multiple men vs a single woman) and implied or explicit threats of bodily harm.

So good shoot right?

Maybe the problem works itself out naturally.....
 
I wonder what the result would have been if the issue was the buffer zone around the Supreme Court building and the Justices. I suspect 180 degrees different.
 
Brainonska511 said:
They still cannot use protesting as a means to block access to clinics. And local law enforcement still has the power to lawfully order obstructers to move out of the way.
Click to expand...

I don't think there will be many more abortion clinics honestly, due to all the "trap laws" being created in just about every state that are shutting down the clinics. But if pro-lifers do go and get on their property I imagine they clinic can call the cops and have them arrested for trespassing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top