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.
No comments:
Post a Comment