Buffer Zone Disconnect

As we in Massachusetts await the decision from the Supreme Court on the fate of our buffer zone laws, our neighboring state of New Hampshire can celebrate the passing of its own 25 foot buffer zone law.

Governor Maggie Hassan has indicated that she will sign the bill into law which passed with bi-partisan support. The bill requires that protestors stay at least 25-feet from the entrance to the clinics in order to allow patients some degree of privacy. Once signed, the bill will go into effect 30 days after. Though the Senate Judiciary committee recommended waiting for the Massachusetts ruling to go come down, the senate rejected that recommendation and passed the bill by a 13-10 vote in favor of the creation of the buffer zone.

As usual the anti-choice population completely misses the point. “They will place us at a distance where we would not be able to speak to people without raising our voice,” said Susan Clifton, and we are a very gentle, peaceful group that comes here.”(CBSLOCAL)Gentle or not what seems to be lacking from the protestors logic is the right to privacy. These individuals think that they have information that women seeking abortions are unaware of. From both an ethical and religious perspective the protestors use the "freedom of speech" argument to justify that they should be able to approach strangers on the street and begin telling them how they should live their lives. In some cases the protestors don't want to "counsel" women as some claim their intentions and merely shout and mock the patients entering clinics (some entering for an abortion and some not).

The Massachusetts buffer zone requires protestors to stay at least 35-feet from the entrance to clinics or in the case of Springfield's clinic, 35-feet from the entrance to the private parking lot. If the protestors do enter the buffer zone they have to be walking through it and not come to a halt. If the law was to be overturned there would be no safe space between where the protestors are allowed and where the entrances to the clinics are. It would be naive not to expect a higher level of confrontation between protestors and patients as well as any non affiliated civilians in the area.

The challenge for courts comes from the fact that abortion is a unique issue with no other situation setting precedent for how to handle legal challenges. In the early days after abortion became legal, protestors went to such extremes that violence and chaos were often the result. From infiltrating clinics as pretend patients to gluing clinic door locks and then in 1993 murdering abortion providers (David Gunn) and in 1994 Planned Parenthood employee's (John Salvi), it isn't hard to understand why a buffer zone law is a good compromise between the right to free speech and the right to privacy. It is my sincere hope that the Supreme Court upholds the Massachusetts buffer zone law to in order to protect women and maintain a level of public safety that could otherwise lead us back into the violence and tragedy of the past.

Why I Filmed my Abortion

It was through my facebook feed that I first found the link to this COSMO article. In short, a young woman who works at a women's clinic becomes pregnant and has an abortion. She decides to film part of the actual procedure and make the video public. Internet trolls commence and spew hate on her Vimeo film page and on the comment sections of the Cosmo article. The video is not graphic and it does not show any part of the actual suction process. The video shows Emily Lett talking to the camera giving some brief background information on who she is and what she does. She is an abortion counselor and when she discovers that she is pregnant she decides to film part of the procedure. You can view the video HERE.

If so inclined, I suggest publishing a comment on the Cosmo site or making an account on Vimeo to leave a statement in support. Bravo to this brave young girl who tells the world that she made the right decision for her and she is not going to be shamed for it.