The buffer zone is good law. The patients to the clinic are free from
harassment while the protestors can still convey their message (albeing not
dcirectly, at spitting distance, into the face of the patients). It also
protects the safety of the patients and practitioners are the medical
clinics.If people don't like the law, I ask them to describe
how best to protect the patients from over-zealous protestors while allowing the
protestors to convey their mesage.
What I find most insulting is that these protesters seem to think that these
women haven't given it five minutes of thought. You would be hard-pressed
to find an actual woman who takes abortion lightly, despite the stereotype of
the abortion junky, ghetto mom thrown around on conservative media. The women
entering these clinics have likely investigated their options, considered it,
often cried about it, and come to a tough decision. They don't need
someone getting in their face telling them they're a bad person as they try
to go through the doors.
I wonder if the 35 ft zone was around the entrances of a Church, Mosaic, Temple,
religious gathering or some other non liberal agenda item, if there would be the
same support on the part of the those who currently support this zone. If it doesn't for one thing why should it work for the other way.As always, it seems to be good only if it fits what the people support,
but if it goes against what they think, then it is bad.
buffer zone is not just for abortion. many conservative states have buffer zone
to prevent Westboro Baptist Church to picket military service men and
women's funeral face to face.If this MA law is struck down, I
wonder if the next thing will be Westboro Baptist Church can picket a
soldier's funeral standing next to his family members.
@Bag Man,If there are some people constantly standing at a
church's door, telling church members they are murderers, then yes, there
should be a buffer zone for those people.
Wpould be nice if there were a 35-foot buffer zone around all entrances to
Temple Square, so those abusive protesters could be held at bay. But that's different free speech, isn't it? Only the Left get to
express themselves in our PC world.....
To "OHBU" from Ohio who writes, "The women entering these clinics
have likely investigated their options, considered it, often cried about it, and
come to a tough decision.", I have a question.Why would these
women, or anyone else, consider this a "tough decision"?If
the act of abortion is no more consequential than having a haircut, as many
abortion advocates I've read or heard from state, then why would deciding
to have a haircut, or not, be so tough?Could it be that most people,
women in particular, have a hard time deciding to have an abortion because, in
fact, the consequences are **vastly** more important than having a haircut.
That, in fact, at least one life, their child's life, hang's in the
balance.Most people adopt these lies because they find the truth of
what abortion means to be so difficult to accept. Consequently, I'm
convinced that when the lies forming the basis of the pro-abortion arguments are
fully and honestly confronted, especially by the one making the argument, the
decision to kill an unborn child is not only made tougher, but less likely to
result in the death of the child.
@Bag Man"I wonder if the 35 ft zone was around the entrances of a
Church, Mosaic, Temple, religious gathering or some other non liberal agenda
item, if there would be the same support on the part of the those who currently
support this zone. "Not sure why religious buildings are
"non liberal agenda" when over half of liberals are religious but
whatever. Sure. 35ft isn't that far away.
@Bag ManI support the right of protestors to gather on Temple Square
every April and October. I don't appreciate their message, but I support
their right to free speech.
I have never heard a single serious pro-choice advocate say it's like
getting a haircut...that's only the stereotype of these women promoted by
conservative opponents. In reality people take these decisions seriously, just
as they do when considering getting a mastectomy or otherwise undergoing medical
procedures. If you bring the child to term there are far-reaching consequences,
even if the child is immediately given up for adoption. It's a tough
choice, but I believe a women has the right to make those decisions about her
body, and the government does not.
@OHBU - NARAL, a serious pro-choice advocate, made a video comparing abortion to
many daily banal choices of women, like chewing gum, buying sweaters, and yes,
getting haircuts. In reality, "most" people probably take these
decisions seriously, as with other medical procedures. Unfortunately,
pro-choice leaders want to brainwash women into thinking abortion is just one of
many casual choices they might make, without consequence and easily forgotten as
a common and trivial occurrence.I think it takes a high degree of
denial and callousness to conveniently pretend an abortion is only about the
body of a woman, and has no connection to the body of the human life being
killed. Why stop at birth? Babies can be tremendously inconvenient to the
"body of a woman" for some time even after birth. Why not extend her
right to decisions about her body (and by extension, whatever affects her body)
for a year after the birth of her child, as long as the body of the child is not
to be considered? I believe the government certainly does have a right to make
decisions about the lives of human beings.