Coming Soon To A Women’s Health Clinic Near You
Posted by Michelle Moquin on January 23rd, 2014
Good morning!
The Supreme Court’s Probably About To Create A Right To Harass Women At Abortion Clinics
Coming soon to a women’s health clinic near you
Justice Anthony Kennedy is widely perceived as a swing vote on abortion, thanks to his decision to retain the “essential holding of Roe v. Wade” in the 1992 casePlanned Parenthood v. Casey. But this perception of Kennedy is misplaced. Since becoming a justice, Kennedy voted to strike just one of the 21 abortion restrictions that have come before the Supreme Court, and that one restriction was in Casey itself. Thus, Kennedy has not voted to block a law limiting access to abortion for the last 21 years.
On Wednesday, the justices will hear a case brought by abortion protesters seeking greater access to women approaching abortion clinics — and if Justice Kennedy gets his way, those protesters may soon have unlimited ability to “counsel” or even harass patients approaching women’s health clinics.
McCullen v. Coakley concerns a Massachusetts law that creates a buffer zone around clinics that women can freely travel through without being confronted by protesters, leafleters or so-called “sidewalk counselors.” Under the Massachusetts law, entrances to abortion clinics are surrounded by a 35 foot buffer zone that no one may enter unless they have legitimate business within the clinic or are simply passing through the buffer zone in order to reach another destination.
McCullen hinges on two distinctions at the heart of First Amendment law. Laws that are “content-based” — that is, laws that single out speech about a particular topic for inferior treatment — and laws that engage in “viewpoint discrimination” — that is, laws that treat people who hold one set of views differently than people who hold opposing views — are both treated with great skepticism under the First Amendment. Thus, the First Amendment allows a state to prohibit someone from loudly protesting outside their neighbor’s bedroom while that neighbor is trying to sleep, so long as it bans all protests on any subject whatsoever. But a law that prohibits only protests about abortion — or only prohibits protests opposing abortion — while permitting protests on all other topics, is likely to be struck down.
The plaintiffs in McCullen try to characterize the Massachusetts law as one that engages in viewpoint discrimination because it permits clinic workers and their patients to enter and exit the buffer zones (and thus to enter and exit the clinic itself), without permitting abortion protesters to do so. It’s a neat trick. Essentially, the plaintiffs argue that clinic workers are themselves pro-choice, so allowing them inside the buffer zone without also allowing anti-abortion protesters is a form of viewpoint discrimination. Should the Supreme Court accept this argument, the only way for Massachusetts to enforce its buffer zone law would be for it to also forbid clinic workers from entering and exiting the clinic where they work. Clearly, this is not a workable way for a health clinic to operate.
It’s likely, however, that the Court will hand an even more expansive victory to abortion protesters. Dissenting in a 2000 case called Hill v. Colorado, Justice Kennedy suggested that any law that prevents protests around health clinics by its very nature engages in content discrimination, no matter how the law is written or how broadly it sweeps. “We would close our eyes to reality,” Kennedy claimed inHill, “were we to deny that ‘oral protest, education, or counseling’ outside the entrances to medical facilities concern a narrow range of topics—indeed, one topic in particular. By confining the law’s application to the specific locations where the prohibited discourse occurs, the State has made a content-based determination.”
In essence, Kennedy argued that the only reason anyone ever protests outside of a health clinic is because they oppose abortion, so any restriction on protests outside of clinics should be treated as an impermissible content restriction. Should Kennedy’s view carry the day in McCullen, the result will be a constitutional right to protest outside of health clinics that does not exist at any other location or apply to protesters focused on any other topic.
In fairness, the plaintiffs in this case claim that they do not berate the women they target for so-called counseling — according to their brief, they “try to engage women who may be seeking abortions in close, kind, personal communication, with calm voices, caring demeanor, and eye contact.” That may very well be true, but if the Supreme Court gives them a constitutional right to engage in this kind of subtle protest, Massachusetts will hardly be able to permit this kind of activity while banning more aggressive protesters — permitting speech that is outwardly kind to women seeking abortions while banning speech that is overtly nasty to them would itself be a form of content-based regulation.
In other words, the likely outcome of a decision writing Justice Kennedy’s preferences into the law would be open season for everything from the kind of activity these plaintiffs say they engage in to angry men dressed up as grim reapers yelling at women approaching clinics.
*****
Sigh…
Blog me.
Peace & Love.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
Thank you for your loyal support!
All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2012
“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream
" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"
January 23rd, 2014 at 9:17 am
What would you expect from STARK, but a stark raving mad decision for women. This country would be a nightmare for anyone but white men if not for MLK. What we are seeing is an attempt to return to white male rule.
January 23rd, 2014 at 9:30 am
The Federation acknowledges the return of all vessels. They appear to have never left because their instruments reflect no use of power.
Howie, this is your acknowledgement. They will now continue upon their missions.
MZ654//^
January 23rd, 2014 at 9:50 am
Acknowledge, <3964361: – {[5812]*[1]*[79535]*[66]*[1892}}•{[352æ1]*[752]*[283]*[6332]*[632]*[8595]•
January 23rd, 2014 at 10:11 am
Acknowledgement received MZ654//^ Shipa were returned just as they left with no injuries as promiused.
Thank you.
HOWIE
January 23rd, 2014 at 10:28 am
Howie, you are the MAN!
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:19 am
Gloria I understand you mother doesn’t get why you feel the way you do. If you are attractive, a great many men will look at you and think of sex. Men you have a business relationships with, your friends’ husbands, your friends. That is life. Deal with the reality – it will never change.
The good men just keep it to themselves, as they always have. The men who are creepy are the ones with no self-control. Ignore them – they mean nothing.
Now if creepiness turns to stalking or something worse then obviously you have to deal with it.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:20 am
Excellent!
So I suppose this means liberal groups can hang around outside Republican gathering places (churches, RNC fundraisers, etc.) with similar signs and it will now be ok?
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:22 am
It’s likely, however, that the Court will hand an even more expansive victory to abortion protesters. Dissenting in a 2000 case calledHill v. Colorado, Justice Kennedy suggested that any law that prevents protests around health clinics by its very nature engages in content discrimination, no matter how the law is written or how broadly it sweeps.
“We would close our eyes to reality,” Kennedy claimed in Hill, “were we to deny that ‘oral protest, education, or counseling’ outside the entrances to medical facilities concern a narrow range of topics—indeed, one topic in particular. By confining the law’s application to the specific locations where the prohibited discourse occurs, the State has made a content-based determination.”
In essence, Kennedy argued that the only reason anyone ever protests outside of a health clinic is because they oppose abortion, so any restriction on protests outside of clinics should be treated as an impermissible content restriction. Should Kennedy’s view carry the day in McCullen, the result will be a constitutional right to protest outside of health clinics that does not exist at any other location or apply to protesters focused on any other topic.
This is a law that can be twisted to impose one’s opinion on another forcing them to comply to that opinion by law it’s not right and should not be the basis of support for any law the implements encroachment on another American.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:23 am
‘m just curious how this “right to harass women” might interact with “stand your ground” laws?
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:25 am
heard part of a program on PBS a few days ago and they said that Scalia ( Supreme Court Judge ) said the protests are ” counseling ” and should be legal.
Oh, women should be subjected to FORCED counseling that they don’t want and don’t ask for every time they go to the clinic, even when they are not going there for an abortion?
How about we FORCE men to have ” counseling ” about the consequences of sexual activity every time we want to have sex?
This so-called judge should be impeached and / or run out of town on a rail for trying to impose his RELIGIOUS beliefs on women.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:26 am
Republicans have so scared the general public with their inability to control their crazies that *no one* is donating. That’s precisely why the entire Republican Party is basically being grub-staked by a few old sugardaddies (who are a lot closer to the end of their life than the beginning).
It doesn’t take a very smart person to see the ultimate outcome of such a situation.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:28 am
Immigration tells the tale of what America has become.
Europeans no longer are coming to America, except perhaps for a job.
Scandinavians do a hearty LMFAO if someone asks why THEY don’t emigrate to America.
The ONLY people wanting to come to America are from 3rd world nations.
People are actually emigrating OUT of America and back to Europe and China.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:32 am
You can’t pick and choose who gets to utilize free speech. Either it is a right for everybody, or nobody.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:34 am
Nikolai, name a bank employee killed by a bomb or having an OWS member shoot them in the head.
The reason the buffer zones was created is because right to lifers are @!$%#ing terrorists.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:35 am
Vargret, Yeah, some are. But they and their weapons have never been stopped by a 35 foot buffer zone.
Besides, even if the court rules out the buffer-zone, it can only apply to public property, sidewalks and the like. Private parking lots will still be off-limits, and I don’t see the court allowing protesters to physically block access to entrances.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:37 am
Maybe those baby killers should move the clinic to a Wal Mart parking lot.
You’d have a “buffer” of @!$%#in’ miles.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:39 am
Nikolai:
They shouldn’t have to move to protect themselves, anymore than an anti-abortion office should be forced to move to protect itself. But the reality is that violent whackadoodles exist, and society and the facilities have to take them into account. But that also means they can’t and shouldn’t be left to do it all themselves.
What they really need for the safety of these women are their own buildings, set back far enough to have a good buffer of private property and good, armed security.
But money is also an issue for them, as public safety is an issue for everybody in the community. I think the state has a responsibility to find a way to protect the facilities, or at least help the facilities protect themselves and their patrons.
A determined maniac like John Salvi or Scott Roeder won’t be stopped by a buffer zone of any size, they would just kill whoever got in their way, anywhere they were, and find a way to rationalize their actions. But they can be discouraged…
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:41 am
The court passed Roe. Now they gotta deal with the fallout. Forty years later we’re still fighting it. The public will continue to hammer away at a bad law.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:43 am
Val, That’s precisely what it is–political–from only one side: the side opposing abortion. In terms of good medicine, medical professionals–not politicians–say that mandatory requirements for hospital admitting privileges are not necessary. Making it mandatory has nothing to do with good medicine or patient safety. It’s a political ploy to make it difficult for women to get abortions. That’s the only reason.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:43 am
The Constitution does not allow for any regulation of the exercise of rights for those who “qualify” for exercising those rights. I use the word “qualify” only because abortion does not pertain to every man, woman and child in the country, obviously, nor does every man, woman and child in the country have a right to perform an abortion. Abortion affects only females of child-bearing age and medical doctors.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:45 am
You have the same rights to wave signs outside an “operation rescue” office as they do to wave signs outside of a clinic that operates aboritions.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:48 am
Nilolai:
Absolutely! Neither, however, has a legal or constitutional right to harass others. There is no First Amendment right in this country to infringe upon others in view, listening distance or passage distance of those demonstrations.
There IS a constitutional right of those others NOT to be bothered or detained by those demonstrators. That’s the part you’re leaving out. Exercising one’s First Amendment rights do not include engaging in a verbal or physical “battle” as to whose rights prevail. They’re not supposed to be in competition with each other.
Anti-abortion protesters can scream and wave vulgar signs to their hearts’ content. Same goes for the pro-choice demonstrators. But they cannot impede the free passage of patients or office personnel into those buildings.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:49 am
I wonder how this will affect President Redacted’s “Free Speech Zones” if another president ever tries to go that route again.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:50 am
The only problem is abortion clinics are too cheap to be in locations where private property rights are relevant. If they ban protesting with buffer zones on public property adjacent to a clinic I think Wal-Mart should stop being nice about protesters in their “private” parking lot.
Make the clinics occupy buildings that are defensible with current trespass laws and leave free speech alone! Especially when Planned Parenthood is going to get billions of our tax $$$ with the new budget so use it for that! You’ve already stolen our money now leave us alone or you’re going to lose it all.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:51 am
I dunno. Luniz#23
Maybe Obama won’t be able to keep people who bought tickets to his speech out of his speech if they are wearing pro tea party shirts. Heck, maybe the Democratic National Convention will have to eschew “designated protest zones” in the future.
Sounds like a good thing.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:52 am
And 41 yrs after Roe the battle rages on. We will continue to hammer, hammer, hammer at Roe. Perhaps if those 52 million souls were contributing to the social security system I could retire. Perhaps one of them would have become President and get rid of this debt which has made us all slaves to our government.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:53 am
Nikolai#25;
It was Bush the Lesser who established protest zones where the dignitaries did not have to see or hear the protestors, thereby negating the protestors free speech rights.
NOT OBAMA.
It is REPUBLICANS who refuse to hear anything they don’t want to hear, not Democrats.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:54 am
Val#26, Your battle ended 41 yrs ago when the ruling came down.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:56 am
Val#26 – “Perhaps one of them would have become President and get rid of this debt which has made us all slaves to our government”
I’m playing world’s smallest violin for the people who can eat the steak so long as they don’t have to hold the airgun to the cows head.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:57 am
You already have free speech there, it’s really only the distance being questioned. Yes, I know anti-abortion people don’t agree.
Bear something in mind, [even if the court strikes down the 35 foot separation], the first time a violent incident occurs, [no matter who starts it], or an incident that can be legally defined as harassment or intimidation, that same 35 foot separation will return, or more likely a greater separation with physical barriers put in place as a ‘public safety’ measure.
Given that it’s an emotional issue, and that the anti-abortion movement has a long history of violence up to and including murder…it’s only a matter of time before something goes terribly wrong for everybody.
January 23rd, 2014 at 11:58 am
The anti-choicers’ rights end where the rights of the women involved begin. If SCOTUS decides these crazies can stand there and harass women, then the PRO-choicers need to be out there making sure those women enter the clinics in one piece.
January 23rd, 2014 at 12:10 pm
AND REMEMBER THESE HATEFUL DICKHEADS WHO ATTACK WOMEN WHEN THEY ARE VOLUNERABLE AND THEN TELL HER TO @!$%# OFF IF SHE ACTUALLY HAS THE KID HAVE ALREADY KILLED!!!
A the war on women and womens rights is real.
this also proves that ti is critical we dont let the right stack the courts with these misogynistic pieces of shit.
January 23rd, 2014 at 12:34 pm
Debbie #6, you nailed that subject woman, although now I get you Abigail #18, 27 & 33 fr 1/21 bc I don’t know what Gloria’s comment was that Debbie was responding to, so now I know exactly how you feel and will be more diligent in my future commenting, thanks again for bringing it to my attention.
Deloris #9, I like the way you think.
Willie #10 & 27, agreed and right on, tell it. Dudes, follow the men who make sense please…thank you, Willie, you are a refreshing man voice.
And the right-to-lifer’s have been harassing women for a long time, they’re a freaking diligent bunch and don’t give a shit about sensitivity. I addressed one once in a planned parenthood parking lot, I was running in to get BC pills but apparently my appt was on ‘abortion protest’ day and a woman blocked me and said ‘what about the baby?’ I asked her several times to get out of my way but you know how those religious folks are…finally I said ‘unless you’re writing a large check to support the baby that doesn’t even exist for 18 years, I would suggest you get the hell out of my way’ – she was petite and I think she saw I was getting very agro with the whole sitch. Do I think teh harassment will stop? Hell no.
Luv, Zen Lill
January 23rd, 2014 at 6:39 pm
“The ability to pollute the commons for personal wealth is the fundamental foundation of Western capitalism and clearly a failed paradigm and transition to another is clearly traumatic. But then, so is Ecocide. Stop profits from polluting!”
January 23rd, 2014 at 10:11 pm
I think the best descriptor is plump
May 4th, 2014 at 8:49 pm
Thanks for finally talking about > Michelle Moquin’s “A day in the life of” Blog Archive Coming Soon
To A Women’s Health Clinic Near You < Liked it!
Feel free to surf to my blog post; best fb ads cracked reloaded