In your Face Buffer Zone Laws.

This article came out on Boston.com this morning.

As I read the article the first thing I felt was anger, that was quickly followed by a sense of hopelessness, finally I was irritated and then motivated to write about it.

In terms of Abortion clinics, the buffer-zone law seeks to keep protesters a certain distance from the building and the patients entering it. The specifics of the buffer zone varies according to legislation and most states in the U.S. do not have a buffer zone law in place.

On the Federal level, The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), was past by Bill Clinton in 1994. In response to the rising incidences of violence and attempted (and successful) murders being committed in the 70's, the law specified behavior types that are prohibited in the case of reproductive centers.

You cannot obstruct the entrance to the building or the parking lot. You cannot physically try and stop people from entering. You may not trespass or commit acts of vandalism. Threats of violence, stalking individuals and bomb threats are specifically prohibited as well. The rights guaranteed under the first amendment do allow for protests, disseminating information, shouting or singing and carrying signs or posters.

Massachusetts and California have enacted buffer zone laws that require protestors to remain at least 35-feet away from the entrance to a facility providing abortions. For more specific policies go here.

The article in question opens by referring to a team of abortion opponents aiming to strike down Massachusetts buffer zone laws by claiming that the law infringes on their constitutional right to free speech. As discussed above, the right to free speech remains intact within the law, it just prevents strangers approaching patients or staff trying to enter the building directly. The argument for repealing the buffer zone law due to it being unconstitutional is that the zones prevent protesters from "properly" conveying its message.

“There needs to be a means of true communication," said Michael J. DePrimo, a civil rights lawyer based in Connecticut who represents several of the protesters in the case. They include an 84-year-old doctor, an 83-year-old grandmother, and a 30-year-old seminary student.“

They argue that due to logistics, the protesters are pushed much further away (at least in Springfield) and this infringes on their ability to adequately express their views to anyone entering the clinic. Deprimo argues, “There’s no way [one of the protesters] would have any opportunity to go up to that person and talk to that person."

What is specifically upsetting to me is the complete lack of understanding that preventing protesters from directly confronting patients or those entering a clinic is the entire point of the buffer zone law and FACE. In 1994, John C. Salvi III, went on a shooting rampage at two Brookline clinics that ended in the murder of two women. The atrocities committed by so many of those who seek out clinics are too numerous to list here. Arson, bomb threats, shootings, attempted murder and murder are all examples of clinic targeted violence. Dr. George Tiller, probably the most well know individual murdered by abortion foes, was fatally shot once in the face on May 31st 2009 while serving as an usher in Church. This was not the first attempt on his life.

It defies logic that protesters are arguing freedom of speech infractions when they are continually proving the dangers of leaving clinics, their patients and staff, open to the illegal crimes and behaviors displayed by their associates. I'm not saying all protesters are out to murder, but how do you tell which protesters are dangerously unstable? You can't, until they commit a crime. Women entering abortion clinics are not committing a crime. They are NOT committing a crime.

In a grossly oversimplified version of the problem, protesters are not looking to persuade or gently coax women to sources of unbiased, scientifically correct health information. They are aiming to shock, horrify and shame women who are exercising their own rights. Extremists have shown over and over again that they will go to any length in order to prevent legal abortions from taking place, including putting innocent people in the line of fire to prove their point.

Not only is it perfectly legal to carry posters of mutilated fetuses, botched abortions and religious propaganda, the protesters often shout awful things and berate those trying to enter a clinic for whatever reasons. Even after the law was passed groups of protesters have said that they are able to persuade women from having an abortion by offering last minute advise or "help" to provide resources. If their message is that strong and they are that convinced of their mission then they can obviously share the same poignant experiences that miraculously change the decision of a women to have an abortion, from the other side of the parking lot.


As for the status of the move to declare the buffer zone in Massachusetts unconstitutional, "US District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro told the lawyers to submit more documents and said he will then take the matter under advisement."

*Quotations unless noted otherwise are all taken from Miton J. Valencia's article assessable here.

Urban Outfitters (again) and the Sexualization of Girls

If you allow your 15 year old daughter to model in questionable poses do you then have the right to sue the photographer if those pictures end up on a t-shirt?

According to the parents of teen model Hailey Clauson, you do.

Clauson's parents filed a $28 million lawsuit against Urban Outfitters and photographer Jason Lee Parry for using images of their daughter on a t-shirt as well as other products.

It's hard to say exactly if the parents consented to the images or not. This one in particular has gotten the parents in a furor over what they call "a blatantly salacious" image of their daughter.

The parents knew about the photo shoot and its racy poses, but object to the retailer’s use of them without their permission. Supposedly, Clausons agent at the time, complained about the provocative pictures and Parry agreed not to publish them. Blood is the New Black is the manufacturer of the questionable t-shirt and according to them they were not aware that the model was 15 at the time. Parry said the images were stolen from him and Blood is the New Black says they have worked with Parry in the past and had his permission to print the t-shirts.

Regardless of the exact story, I have been troubled by the models in urban outfitters catalogs to the extent that I don't even open them anymore, they go straight in the recycle bin and I make a call to ask them to take me off the mailing list.

Obviously, the parents are likely to come under fire for allowing the photographs to be taken in the first place. I think this brings up the bigger issue of how young models are portrayed as sexual beings from alarmingly young ages. It's frustrating to see clothing made for children as if girls as young as 7 have to worry about wearing a padded bikini top.What? Or skinny jeansHuh?

It sickens me to think about women being blamed for sexual abuse, rape, assault and other perverted and violent acts because of how they are dressed. Women who are adults experience this blame game and there are those who would agree that women dressed promiscuously are asking to be raped or assaulted.

Basically young women and girls don't stand a chance against this double standard. There are halter tops for girls as soon as they are out of the womb. Companies make skinny jeans and padded bras for girls that are 7 years old. Where is the outrage? Why aren't parents refusing to buy these things? Instead of buying your 7 year old niece a tube top for her birthday you should give her Mom the $15 to put away for college. If we are taking away the self-esteem of girls at such a young age, what can we expect them to do in the future? How can we expect them to even take themselves seriously?

Michele Bachmann,

So, yes. It is true. Michele Bachmann became the first women to win the completely fake and entirely unscientific Iowa straw poll. That seems to be a place where she is used to, a magical world where you can fill up with the type of self importance that allows you to make statements based on absolutely no truth what so ever. One doesn't have to search far in order to find the dozens and dozens of incorrect statements made by Michele Bachmann.

To name a few, Obama dipped in to the oil reserves at a time when we have never been as well off in that department and what does Bachmann say? She chastises the President for depleting the entire oil reserves. Try 4%, and as if no one else would have said anything about that before she did? She also has said that the Constitution only requires her to tell the census "how many people are in our home." Nothing else accept that. Yup, both illegal and wrong.

For one that comes out of left field, "I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence." One, she's wrong. Gerald Ford was President in 1976 when there was fear of a swine flu epidemic. Two, to suggest a partisan link with a deadly disease is idiotic not interesting.

Earlier in the year Bachmann stated that she was proud to be making a speech in the town of Waterloo, Iowa, where John Wayne was from, because she embodies his ideals. Unfortunately for her, it turns out that the actor John Wayne was not from Waterloo, John Wayne Gacy was and he was a serial killer.

Besides not knowing her history (John Quincy Adams is a founding father? His father is.) Bachmann has thirty ratings on her politifact file and only one of them is rated true. She has two rated mostly true, two rated half true and the other twenty-five break down as five mostly false, thirteen straight up false and seven of her statements are rated "pants on fire." Ladies and Gentlemen, we just might up with Pinocchio as the president.

No co-pays for Birth Control

Monday brought this announcement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Beginning on Aug. 1, 2012, insurance providers will no longer be able to charge co-pays or other additional fees for government-approved birth control.

“The Affordable Care Act helps stop health problems before they start,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need." Read More

After the unrelenting attacks on Planned Parenthood and reproductive rights as a whole this past year this news, at least to this Feminist, couldn't be more welcome.