Buffer Zone Ordinance Passes in Madison, Wisconsin


Individuals walking into any health-care clinic in Madison, Wisconsin, including those that provide abortion services, will now be separated from anti-choice protesters by a buffer zone.

Passed by the city council Tuesday, the new ordinance will require a 160-foot buffer zone around any health-care clinic in the city, with a fine of up to $750 for violators. In addition, individuals entering clinics will be protected by a floating eight-foot buffer zone, meaning that protesters must stay that far away from people entering clinics, even outside the 160-foot zone.

The ordinance was passed unanimously, and no amendments were made after introduction at either the committee or council level.

Ald. Lisa Subeck (District 1) introduced the ordinance to ensure that every individual trying to obtain medical care could do so with a sense of privacy. Subeck told The Capital Times that the ordinance “applies to any healthcare facility in the city, but clearly the health care facilities where we have a problem are women’s reproductive health care clinics.” 

Subeck told RH Reality Check that the response to the ordinance has been overwhelmingly positive. “We received much positive feedback leading up to the vote,” said Subeck. “From the time the ordinance was introduced to the time of passage, the overwhelming majority of responses has been supportive and positive.”

While the ordinance applies to all health-care clinics in the city, it was proposed in response to constant protests of Planned Parenthood Madison East, the sole provider of abortion services in the city, and one of only four clinics in the state. 

Anti-choice activists have already filed a lawsuit against the ordinance, as attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom filed to seek an emergency injunction Wednesday. The lawsuit claims that the ordinance violates the First Amendment rights of so-called sidewalk counselors. Gwen Finnegan, director of Madison Vigil for Life and the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, characterized the ordinance as an “attempt to impose a gag rule on free speech.”

Michael May, an attorney for the City of Madison, told RH Reality Check that the ordinance is considered by the city to be constitutional, in part because it is modeled on a Colorado law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hill v. Colorado. May said that the city will respond fully to the specifics of the claims in the lawsuit when they defend the ordinance in court, adding that the costs associated with defending the lawsuit by city attorneys are included in the city budget.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Teddy Wilson on Twitter: @txindyjourno

To schedule an interview with Teddy Wilson please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • cjvg

    Perfect!

  • fiona64

    Hooray!

  • squwelly

    Soon the anti-abortion fanatics will start commenting, whining about how this ordinance violates their “free speech.” Just wait.

    • VonRecklingHause

      Well, doesn’t it?

      I mean, I think those morons at Westboro Baptist Church should rot in hell, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to say whatever idiotic things they want.

      I’m in no way supporting violence against women going to abortion clinic, but we shouldn’t be sacrificing free speech to support abortion.

      Just my opinion….

      • Mindy McIndy

        Nothing is stopping them from shouting their diatribes, they just have to do it 160 feet away. I don’t see the problem. Would you allow a Jehovah’s Witness to protest and scream at and harass people donating blood at the Red Cross right by their doors?

        • VonRecklingHause

          The thing is, I wouldn’t care if a Jehovah’s witness was protesting my donating blood as long as they don’t assault me.

          • cjvg

            Screaming in a woman’s face that she is a murderer certainly constitutes a verbal assaults in anyone’s opinion. Stepping in her way and forcing papers etc in her hand even if she does not want them, all constitutes assault!

            Maybe all pro-choice people should start demonstrating in front of churches on sunday. Screaming in the faithful believers faces that they are ignorant bigots and idiots and that their children should be ashamed to be seen with such bigots for parents?!

            Disrespectful you say, well it is my right of free speech and I intended to do this every Sunday now. preferably with a large group carrying weapons for our own protection and many many posters drowning jesus etc.

          • VonRecklingHause

            You want to scream at someone? Go for it.

            But this law isn’t about that. Screaming in someone’s face can already be punished under the current law. “Disturbing the peace” “Harassment” — take your pic. This “buffer” is anti-free speech. Any fool can see that.

            “Free speech” doesn’t mean “only speech I agree with.” FYI.

            I’m not saying the intention of this law is wrong. But it’s implementation is dubious. It would easily fail if challenged by a court under 1st amendment rights.

          • Ella Warnock

            Eh, following women around whether they’re yelling or not is also dubious. Free speech from a distance is still free speech. They certainly have the right to protest, but they have no right to actually be *heard*.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Look at what I wrote.

            “can already be punished under the current law.”

            So what’s the point of this new law again?

          • lady_black

            Keeping nuts physically distant from patients. Any other dumb questions?

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            This is the point, DumbAss:

            http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/22/the-loud-truth-about-abortion-protesters.html

            Keep it up and I will have to add you to my myocardial infarction prayer list. Kali Durge Namah Namo.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            If it could already be “punished” under current law, no one would be suing, complaining or legislating. Duh. How stupid are you?

          • Ella Warnock

            Look what I wrote:

            “Free speech from a distance is still free speech. They certainly have
            the right to protest, but they have no right to actually be *heard*”

            Still all nice and legal for the protesters. Nothing to see here, move along.

          • Unicorn Farm

            To prevent it BEFORE it happens. You can’t be that dense.

            Kinda like how we have gun-free zones in schools- it’s already illegal to shoot someone, but we decided to keep our schools gun-free in hopes of preventing something very bad BEFORE it happens.

          • squwelly

            Ella Warnock wrote: “Free speech from a distance is still free speech.”

            Exactly! VonRecklingHause, the government may not censor the content of speech, but may determine the time, place and manner of speech, if it has a legitimate reason. The reason why anti-choice protestors want to be so close to women entering abortion clinics is because it’s easier to intimidate them that way. And let there be no mistake — many of them intend to intimidate these women. It’s the government’s business to prevent that.

          • cjvg

            It seems reality has passed you by, do me a favor, take a look how these “protester” are counseling women. No free speech being displayed there!
            Apparently much stronger laws are needed to prevent these obvious assaults since they take place all the time!

          • VonRecklingHause

            Assault is already illegal. If the protesters are assaulting people, they should be arrested. Not question about that.

            This law is simply about prohibiting free speech. Nothing more. Nothing less. Can you really not see that?

            And to your second point , I’m pro-choice, but I understand that many people are not, and that’s their right too. Mandating hospitals provide a service that is obviously controversial is not a great tactic. It will just piss people off more.

            And if you want to protest Viagra seekers, nobody is stopping you.

          • Jennifer Starr

            It’s not prohibiting free speech. It’s just prohibiting them from directly approaching and harassing people–you know, what they imagine to be ‘counseling’. They can still stand at a distance and wave their little signs.

          • expect_resistance

            Perfectly said! It’s not prohibiting free speech. It’s a safe zone for the patients. It’s frustrating the antis feel entitled to have unfettered access to harass women.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Oh doG, I skeeve a whiner more than a liar.

            And you know what else I hate. I hate the passive aggressive kind of personality that would come on to an obviously partisan site and tell a lot of intelligent women they “misinterpret” the situation. Silly women, you have it wrong.

            Don’t believe the evidence of your eyes and emotions and intellect, look over here at the shiny object of ideological ethical purity I am flashing in before your eyes … because I am concerned. I want to protect us all from error.

            Remember Plum’s Razor: Illegal abortion and childbirth are the leading causes of death of women worldwide.

          • cjvg

            Mandating that hospitals provide a full range of needed reproductive services is NOT controversial in modern secular countries (is that not what America purports to be?)

            It is beyond ridiculous that ONLY women’s reproductive services are routinely excluded from the services of a full range hospital.

            This is clearly a religious issue that should NOT have any bearing on what health care is available!

            No other civilized country has women’s reproductive services segregated from all other health services, your religion should not have any bearing on my available choices.

            The reason Viagra seekers can not be easily targeted is because they are hidden within the large amount of people seeking other care, and you know that.

            I see you conveniently ignore where I suggest that we mandate that ALL reproductive services available to men have to be separated out and provided in clearly marked free standing clinics like planned parenthood. If that becomes the case then your dismissive “if you want to protest Viagra seekers, nobody is stopping you” actually means something.

            “This law is simply about prohibiting free speech. Nothing more. Nothing less. Can you really not see that?”

            So you tell me how these protesters are prohibited from speaking? They can speak all day long as much as they want about their believes etc, they just can not do it in my face or bar my way, how is that preventing them from speaking?
            The right to free speech is not without limits IE the famous example that you can not yell “fire” in a crowded theater if there is no legitimate reason for it, however you conveniently want to ignore that!

          • expect_resistance

            Brilliantly said!

          • cjvg

            Thank you.

            Obviously it was a futile attempt at honest debate, this brick just keeps ignoring the information he has no counter for!

            He just picks one tiny little piece out of the whole response or he deliberately misinterpretates something and then hangs on to that with all the desperation of those without a legitimate and honest argument

          • VonRecklingHause

            Regardless of your personal view on abortion, all polls show that it has been and still is quite a controversial topic whether you like it or not.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Ooooh controversy. Clutch them pearls, Josephine.

          • Ella Warnock

            Splorted coffee. Thanks a lot, Plum!

          • expect_resistance

            I love when you say that. :)

          • Jennifer Starr

            Controversial, yes. And?

          • cjvg

            Please do not leave out what the rest of those “all polls” say; that the majority of American want abortion to be legal under all or some circumstances.

            And lets not forget those polls were the majority of American’s say that this decision should be between a woman and her doctor!

            That certainly does explains the FACT that personhood amendments are universally and soundly defeated when the voters have a say on it!

            whether you like it or not “pro-choice” pretender

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            “Or maybe we should separate out men’s reproductive services to, so there is an equal opportunity to protest Viagra prescription seekers, vasectomy enjoyers, std patients, penile implant clients etc.”

            ……………Oh would this not be fun? Bring opera glasses and stare fixedly at their crothes as they enter. Point and laugh and say things like “Wee Willy.” Think Josephine Hull. Feather boas.

          • expect_resistance

            I love it.

          • cjvg

            It would certainly make for a nice object lesson to some men (that desperately need one)

            I want a pink boa with glitter please, please pretty please. Can we get some of that music too (you know the one they always play in old films when a woman is doing a risqué dance on a stage?!)

          • colleen2

            Or maybe we should separate out men’s reproductive services to, so there
            is an equal opportunity to protest Viagra prescription seekers,
            vasectomy enjoyers, std patients, penile implant clients etc.

            Males are enormously expensive for tax payers. They commit the overwhelming majority of crimes and the incarceration, unpaid child support and the costs of the crimes themselves should more than compensate for the social costs of human reproduction.
            I don’t think that limited male healthcare will wake them up to their overwhelmingly unjust sense of entitlement. These are small, greedy men and women who justify their cruelties by believing that God wants them to dominate and hurt others.

            I don’t think we can separate services out by gender effectively because most women will understand that is unfair to do so. Unfortunately Republicans and the religious right enjoy being unfair and unjust.

          • cjvg

            There is no muffling of speech involved they are still free to speak all they want, there is no constitutional right to a captive audience!

          • VonRecklingHause

            “captive audience”

            I didn’t realize people were being held against their will.

          • Jennifer Starr

            They can still say their little spiels–but there’s no reason why women have to be forced to hear them or to interact with these loonies. And let’s be honest here–most of these so-called ‘sidewalk counselors’ are not wound too tight.

          • five_by_five

            They don’t have to listen to them. They can walk away and ignore them.

            Just like I would walk away and ignore the Westboro Baptist Church.

          • Jennifer Starr

            There’s no reason why they should have to deal with it in the first place. Free speech is just as free at a distance.

          • lady_black

            The Westboro Baptist “Church” is kept at a distance. They cannot approach the graveside of a funeral they’re picketing. Thanks for proving our point. You can go now.

          • Mirable

            I am sure you would not mind if the WBP picketed your doorstep.

          • cjvg

            And how would the woman then get the health care she went there to obtain?

            With a buffer zone a woman can indeed walk away and still get to the clinic were she can get the care she needs/wants, and that is exactly why these “protesters” do not want a buffer zone.

            Thanks for making for a buffer zone crystal clear, i’m glad you realize it well done!

          • five_by_five

            The walk away from the protester and into the clinic. Not that difficult to understand cjvg.

          • cjvg

            So you claim that these protesters should have the legal right to force me to listen to them if I want to access the healthcare I need?!
            Unfortunately for you that legal right is non existent!
            And to ensure that women are not subjected to their illegal attempts to force them to listen to it, we are now enacting buffer zones.
            I hope that is not to difficult for you to understand !

          • five_by_five

            1. The do have the legal right to talk to you.
            2. They do not have the legal right to impair your movement or detain you.

            If you actual knew the law, you’d know this.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Nope. Not unless I want them to.

          • expect_resistance

            No, they do not have a legal right to talk to women. If someone walks up to me and I say leave me the hell alone they better get the hell out of my way.

          • cjvg

            Eh, no the supreme court has repeatedly affirmed that there are limits to your right to free speech!
            You do not have the right to a captive audience that in effect has no other option then to listen to your illogical personal believes because you want them too!

          • expect_resistance

            Sure.

          • Ella Warnock

            Just don’t listen to anyone advocating choice. Just ignore them.

          • lady_black

            YES. When you’re trying to get inside your doctor’s office you’re a captive audience. If you’re trying to get to your job, you’re a captive audience. How would you like having people in your face when you’re trying to get to work. Does your employer hold employees against their will? NO. But you still have to get to work. And you still have to get to your doctor. Would you like it if we picketed YOUR doctor?

          • Shan

            It’s not like the protesters have set up shop on a random street corner where they hold up graphic, bloody posters and scream at everyone in general about how “abortion is murder!” every day. If that were the case, passersby could create their OWN “buffer zone” by crossing the street or simply taking another route to avoid them.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I think it would be useful to post the definition of violence here to put into perspective the thoughts of the sick contrarians who are posting on this thread:

            Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation. This definition associates intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V

            A Conscientious Objector takes on the burden of the Objection. That is the nature of nonviolent conscientious objection, religious or otherwise. Transferring the burden of one’s own conscientious objection onto the Other is not conscientious objection. It is assault.

          • cjvg

            “A Conscientious Objector takes on the burden of the Objection. That is the nature of nonviolent conscientious objection, religious or otherwise. Transferring the burden of one’s own conscientious objection onto the Other is not conscientious objection. It is assault.”

            Love, love, love !
            I have said this same thing over and over throughout my life, but you have just put it so beautifully here that I’m now deeply in love with this little paragraph.

            Please post this over and over!

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Thank you very much. I worked a long time on making that thought clear. I do post it over and over again. I have written whole essays about this. I am not a Quake for nothing.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Excellent point. They are targeting women who patronize women’s medical clinics. Too bad fertile women are not a “protected class.”

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            You yell “The blood from your crotch will rise up and kill you, you !@#$%” in my face (as a demonstrater did to me)
            on my way to get a pap smear and I
            will rip off your twig and berries, nail your twig to the nearest wall, and urinate on your bleeding spasming body.
            In a Friendly fashion, of course.
            Step back, Anus, your future may depend on it. What makes you think the buffer zone is there to protect the women patrons only?

          • Mirable

            I have the right to free speech, so I can grab 20 of my closest friends and scream at you right outside your door ok. Forever. Cus free speech.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Again, you present the choice “seek healthcare and endure harassment” or “don’t seek healthcare.”

            Are you sure you’re prochoice?

            As someone who is prochoice and basically just a decent person, I am glad that at least some cities are willing to affirmatively say, “hey, we don’t think women should have to endure harassment and have their privacy violated when they seek healthcare.”

          • Shan

            “we don’t think women should have to endure harassment and have their privacy violated when they seek healthcare.”

            THIS. Many times. To infinity.

          • cjvg

            He/she is not, they often say they are to give their dishonest arguments a semblance of legitimacy
            After reading a few “arguments” they bring up you get a clearer picture of what they really are!

          • Unicorn Farm

            Seems to be that way! Cough*gaslighting*cough*troll*cough.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Harassment is already illegal.

          • expect_resistance

            In theory harassment is illegal but anti-choice conservative politicians have sanctioned this harassment through their anti-choice legislation and anti-woman rhetoric.

          • cjvg

            If I can not seek the health care I need/want without being accosted by protesters then I am in fact a captive audience.

            If there are two ways to getting the health care I want/need, and I choose the one with the protesters then I am not a captive audience since I voluntarily made the choice to go where I could listen to them!

            Stop trying to be so simplistic, no one here is that dumb we can not easily dismantle your inane and dishonest arguments

          • expect_resistance

            I don’t think you understand the meaning of “captive.” Not “captive” as in a hostage against their will. A “Captive audience” means that anti-choice protesters feel entitled to have unfettered access to women seeking access to clinics. They think that “First Amendment” rights entitle them to harass women without any barriers. Hence “Captive audience.”

          • Jennifer Starr

            Thank you so much for explaining that to him.

          • expect_resistance

            :)

          • Ella Warnock

            Bu . . . but . . . you can still just walk away! Just ignore them! The ones in MY town don’t harass anybody!

          • VonRecklingHause

            Ella,

            Under pre-existing law, the protesters have no right to impair your movement or detain you. Hence, you can walk away from and enter the clinic or exit the clinic depending on which way you are going.

            You should try reading the 1994 FACE Act sometime and actually learn the existing law before thinking that we need a new law to enforce what already exists.

          • cjvg

            If you can not avoid their speech if you want to get into the clinic you are most certainly a captive audience!

            Explain to me how I can keep my clinic appointment without being subjected to their “free speech”?!

            If I walk away I miss out on the health care I need, so tell me how that is not a captive audience when no buffer zone is in place?!

          • L-dan

            Given the implementation of ‘free speech zones’ around other events where the argument seems to be that allowing protesters free access to all areas would be too disruptive to the activity to allow, I don’t see a difference. Free speech means one may speak freely and demonstrate their opinion. It does not mean freedom to disrupt activities by speaking precisely where you want.

            I’d argue that the ‘free speech zones’ thing has been warped far from this intent in cases where the area protest is allowed is blocks away from the event, since it means that speech can’t be heard or seen from the event. Buffer zones serve just fine in allowing people to speak, hold their signs up, etc.

            If Westboro Baptist tried to stand at the gravesite during one of the funerals they are prostesting, they would be removed for disrupting the event. The ‘counselors’ at clinics do the same and law enforcement of their harassment, etc. is abyssmal.

            Add in their tactics of getting close and crowding around so that patients and their escorts need to push by to get through, while the protestor touched will fall to the ground claiming *they* are the ones being attacked, and you get a whole other level of bullying.

          • Mindy McIndy

            Exactly. When I went to see President Obama speak at Ohio State University before the 2012 election, anti-choice protesters were waving faux dead fetus pictures and screaming at everyone trying to get in two blocks away. They were not allowed outside the gate, they were not allowed inside. Was their free speech violated by not being allowed to scream their rhetoric inside of the event, or near the gates?

          • VonRecklingHause

            Now imagine the same for people protesting Wall Street. Or drone strikes of gov’t corruption.

            How’s your free speech going to feel when you only get to practice it in your special “free speech zone” set aside from everyone.

            Oh…I guess we didn’t think about that…did we?

          • Unicorn Farm

            “Or drone strikes of gov’t corruption”

            I am happy to protest “drone strikes of gov’t corruption” (lol) within 60 or however many feet from the Pentagon. Just like I am happy with my right to should “fire” in field next to the movie theater, but not in it.

            Look, I used my silly little woman brain to think about it.

          • L-dan

            Yeah, try protesting that right up in any political official’s face and enjoy the secret service tackle takedown that’s the best you can expect.

            And I’m actually ok with that. I don’t think free speech means one is allowed into other people’s personal space.

          • Mindy McIndy

            Way to not address my point at all.

          • Jennifer Starr

            My free speech is going to feel just fine, because I still have the freedom to express it.

          • colleen2

            Please stop pretending that you are anything other than a right wing troll attempting (ineffectively) to derail the conversation. There is no ‘we’ here.

          • PetrovaFossil

            For *some* reason, law enforcement actions against aggressive protesters at reproductive healthcare facilities are statistically very low, as opposed to such actions against aggressive protesters at any other venue. I have often pondered this puzzling dichotomy.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, there is a definite double standard there.

            ps–i used to love Noel Streatfield’s ‘shoes’ books when I was young :)

          • PetrovaFossil

            Streatfeild :-)

          • Jennifer Starr

            yes, apologies–I have a habit of switching those letters around–sorry about that.

          • PetrovaFossil

            I almost think she made it deliberately hard to spell :-)

          • VonRecklingHause

            “law enforcement actions against aggressive protesters at reproductive healthcare facilities are statistically very low,”

            I’ve never heard that so I’m wondering where you got this idea.

            I know the PP in my town occasionally has some protesters. They just stand there with signs. Pretty much everyone ignores them. And I know one kid at a local college got in trouble because he was handling out flyers with pictures of aborted fetuses to everyone. The dummy wasn’t even near an abortion clinic, but the school made him stop.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I can still remember what they used to do before the implementation of the FACE act and Joe Scheidler bragging that he could make the rate of abortion-related complications rise just by being outside of a clinic–and he thought that was a good thing. This kind of behavior should not be tolerated.

          • lady_black

            Evidently someone was complaining about him. Good.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            No one has the right to gross me out for schitz and giggles.

            These miscreants depend on the basic civility of others to assault them.

            I am going to start carrying an old fashioned ice pick. Invade my comfort zone and I will hurt you easy and walk away clear. Stand my ground.

          • five_by_five

            If you are grossed out by abortion, maybe you shouldn’t be getting one.

          • Jennifer Starr

            If you can’t get your message out without getting in a woman’s face or running along beside them as they go into a clinc, perhaps it’s not a much of a message to start with.

          • cjvg

            If you are grossed out by child birth maybe you should have an abortion

          • lady_black

            You’d probably be pretty grossed out by watching any surgery. But you might need surgery some day. Fortunately, no one will insist on grossing you out if you do.

          • five_by_five

            Most surgeries don’t involved plucking off limbs and ripping the head off the neck.

          • lady_black

            No woman has ever had that done during an abortion.

          • five_by_five

            Are you really that ignorant?

          • lady_black

            You DO understand who the patient is in an abortion, right?

          • Mirable

            It is illegal to remove a prenate whole and let it expire naturally. Thank repubd for that. So take it up with them if you are oh so worried about the grossness of abortion.

            P.S. if every abortion resulted in the prenate being removed when you would still complain, so cut the crap.

          • five_by_five

            “let it expire naturally”

            Yeah, letting a prenate “expire naturally” doesn’t involve ripping it out of the womb because mommy didn’t feel like having a baby, smart guy.

          • Mirable

            Well, if there’s no ‘dismemberment’ then you should be happy right, dumbfuck?

            Removing it whole is just birth. right? And you don’t oppose birth, do you?

          • P. McCoy

            If it meant living, ie; my life was on the line, I would do it. However, if YOU want to commit suicide to save your baybeeee then be my guest.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Where did I say I was grossed out by abortion? Quit misquoting me.

            You did the same argument by misquotation trick with another poster. Scrub you are.

          • five_by_five

            “No one has the right to gross me out for schitz and giggles.”

            Hmm…what exactly were you referring to Plum Dumptruck?

          • colleen2

            If you are so disturbed by abortion you really should keep your pants zipped.

          • five_by_five

            Ahhh…the abstinence only approach.

            Hmm….I thought you were against that.

          • colleen2

            Not at all. I feel that the ‘men’ of the religious right would do well to practice what they preach. Most of the rapes and horrifically bad sex in the country would stop if the sad little men who condemn women for having abortions were capable of practicing self restraint themselves. It’s not as if a POS like you is capable of having a decent human relationship.

          • lady_black

            I’m glad the protesters at your local Planned Parenthood clinic (which may or may not provide abortions) behave themselves. That isn’t always the case. No matter how much you dissemble, they have no right to park themselves outside a business, harass employees, and insult customers.

          • expect_resistance

            Exactly. I’ve seen more anti-war activists or occupy protesters harassed and forcibly arrested by the police for nothing. I’ve seen much worse behavior by anti-choice protesters and the cops do nothing. It’s like harassing women is tolerated and condoned as a right. What about my right to go to Planned Parenthood and not be screamed at and verbally harassed by some forced-birther creep?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Free speech is just as free from a distance. And free speech doesn’t guarantee you a captive audience and shouldn’t give complete strangers the right to approach and physically accost women who are trying to access basic health care. A woman should be able to access reproductive health care without having to navigate a gauntlet of protesters–some of who are respectful but many who are hostile, intrusive and mentally unsound.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            It will not fail because of the behavior of the antichoice protestors. If you shame people aloud, stalk them trying to give them a baby blanket, etc. etc. that is not “free speech.” It is assault.

            Suggest you try your argument on this Father:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEFWDYB0rWo

          • lady_black

            Only if you believe that the right to free speech includes the right to an audience (it doesn’t). The government has to respect your right to free speech. That doesn’t mean I have to listen to it. Or even hear it.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Screaming in someone’s face can already be punished under the current law.
            ………..
            Liar. Or too stupid to live. Which is it?

          • VonRecklingHause

            You need to settle down. Like I’ve stated before, I’m pro-choice. I’m not sure why you are name calling and getting defensive.

            There are in fact laws against getting in someone’s face and yelling. Like I mentioned earlier, ever heard of “disturbing the peace” and “harassment?”

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Ever try to charge anyone for assault? Actual assault?

            You are too stupid to live. You must be well off and/or white. And not female.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Wow, so angry and violent. Why? Perhaps you should talk to somebody. I’m sorry I’m not as “hood” as you are.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Better if you were sorry for being a cruel unconscious Anus.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Why? Because I mentioned that there are already laws that prevent people from getting in your face in a public place?

            Well, I guess that makes me an anus.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            “Well, I guess that makes me an anus.”
            ……..
            I think that we have reached a point of agreement.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No one is stopping these protesters from speaking. I’m not even going to address the people who call themselves ‘counselors’ because they’re not professionally licensed to do anything. But you haven’t addressed the fact that there’s no reason why these people can’t freely protest at a distance.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Well, you could say they can “freely” protest in their own homes as well. But that isn’t exactly “free,” is it?

            Freedom of speech is to protect unpopular speech. And this is anti-choice crap is that they’re spewing is obviously unpopular speech. Regardless of what you think about abortion, trampling on free speech laws is not the right way to go about it.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Freedom of speech does not guarantee you a right to an audience. It does not give you a right to bother people, which is–and let’s be honest here–exactly what these people want to do. I have a right to go to my local Planned Parenthood for a pap smear or a checkup without having to be bothered by lunatics running along beside me and yammering in my ear about how they can save my non-existent baby or following me into the parking lot to snap a photo of my license plate. And yeah, I could tell these so-called ‘counselors’ that I’m not pregnant, but why should I have to? I don’t owe these clowns any part of my personal life.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Well said.

          • VonRecklingHause

            “Freedom of speech does not guarantee you a right to an audience”

            And the people walking to and from the clinic don’t have have to be their audience. They can walk away.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Why the hell should I have to leave? I have a right to be at that clinic and to get my healthcare without being intimidated and harassed. They’re not conducting any actual business there. Maybe they should leave. Maybe you’ve never been at the receiving end of this. I consider myself a fairly brave person, but I can tell you that after getting through those clinic doors it takes me a good ten minutes to get my hands and legs to stop shaking. I don’t mind the people who hold signs or just pray at a distance, but they shouldn’t be allowed to approach me without my permission. Savvy?

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Quote: they shouldn’t be allowed to approach me without my permission. Savvy?
            …………..
            Damn right. They get the hat pin or the ice pick in the ballinis. Badda bing. Stand my ground.

          • Shan

            “And the people walking to and from the clinic don’t have have to be their audience. They can walk away.”

            And that’s exactly what the “protesters” are attempting to accomplish with their harassment.

            “we shouldn’t be sacrificing free speech to support abortion.”

            Go to a clinic, especially one that DOES perform abortions and watch what happens. Better yet, try walking the gantlet with a woman or as a clinic escort and see whether you think the protesters are exercising “free speech” or engaging in flat-out harassment. I guarantee you will gain a much better perspective on just who the “we” is who is making the sacrifice in the name of free speech.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Like I’ve stated previously, I’ve been to the clinic in my town. Sometimes there are protesters, sometimes not. Most people just ignore them. I’ve ignored them. It wasn’t hard.

            I have no doubt that some protesters are engaging in harassment, but there are already laws for that.

          • Unicorn Farm

            So because it wasn’t hard for you, at the one clinic you went to in your town, we don’t need these laws. OK. I’ve never had food poisoning (knock wood). I guess we don’t need all those food safety laws! See how stupid that sounds?

            “I have no doubt that some protesters are engaging in harassment, but there are already laws for that.”

            Care to address the point I made about how difficult it is to vindicate those rights and how the purpose of these laws is to prevent harassment BEFORE it happens?

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’d rather not have to go through the trouble harassed in the first place, quite frankly. And I don’t see why I should have to be. Do you enjoy being harassed while receiving needed healthcare?

          • cjvg

            Please respond to unicorn farm’s point instead of continuing to duck reality

          • Unicorn Farm

            Are you purposefully being obtuse? They HAVE to walk by the protestors to get to the clinic to access the health care they have every right to access. You are pretending like the options are “obtain health care and avoid harassment” or “obtain health care and suffer harassment”. The choice you’re actually presenting is “obtain health care and suffer harassment” or “don’t obtain health care.”

            Do you really think that’s fair?

          • cjvg

            So your right to free speech should supersede my right to free commerce (the clinic owners point) and my right to seek healthcare without being harassed or threatened with violence (the woman’s point)
            All while your right to free speech has not diminished one iota if you are not allowed to do it right in my ear.

          • Ella Warnock

            But no one has confined them to only protest in their homes. They’re still out in public, and anyone who chooses to can interact with them and hear their point of view. The fact that their target audience is less accessible to them is irrelevant. They’re still perfectly free to protest to their heart’s content.

          • VonRecklingHause

            This reeks of the “free speech zones” set up during George W. Bush.

            But if you’re cool with that I guess you don’t give two squirts of piss about the 1st amendment.

          • Ella Warnock

            You’re just another in a long line of people bellying up to the bar to
            tell them wimminz what they should or should not have to put up with in regards to their reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy.

            Like I said, nothing to see here, move along.

          • cjvg

            Please respond to unicorn farms statements since this was already covered by her/him

          • Unicorn Farm

            Sigh. Yes, there are already laws in place that allow a cause of action for an individual who is harassed or assaulted. These laws do NOTHING to PREVENT you from being harassed (other than provide a slight deterrent effect that obviously isn’t sufficient). All they allow is a cause of action to punish the harasser AFTER the fact. To vindicate rights under these existing laws against harassment and assault, the woman walking to the clinic who is harassed needs to take a number of steps- call the cops, file an incident report, participate in an investigation, testify, etc. etc.- that is, assuming law enforcement even tries to pursue it. All this when all she really wants to do is be left alone to get health care in peace and privacy. Most women simply won’t take these steps (and who can blame them?) and so protestors just keep pushing and pushing that line.

            I am a lawyer. I agree with you that buffer zones laws need to be carefully drafted so as not to run afoul of first amendment rights. But the major benefit of buffer zone laws that you appear to be ignoring is that they prevent harassment, assault, and violence IN THE FIRST PLACE by greatly decreasing the chance that it will occur by forcing physical distance between protestors and patients. Further, the buffer zone is easier to enforce than laws against assault and harassment.

            Sorry if anyone has already made this point.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Very, very well said. Thank you.

          • Shan

            “Sorry if anyone has already made this point.”

            I think we’ve been trying but without the benefit of the clear legal standpoint. Thank you for that.

          • Unicorn Farm

            You’re welcome- I’m glad I could add to your points. Thanks to all of you guys for your contributions here and on other threads- I am lurker and rarely post, but I have been reading this site and the threads for a decade-ish.

          • Shan

            Come on out! The legal POV is vitally important.

          • Unicorn Farm

            I have had phases where I’ve posted a lot– I just have the tendency to get really invested and argumentative! So I usually hang back. I’ve been blocked from a number of the anti-choice sites for trying to add logic…. I’ll try to add more where I think it can be helpful :)

          • VonRecklingHause

            These new laws don’t prevent harassment any more than current harassment laws. Harassment was illegal and still is. This new law changes nothing about that.

            What is does change is that it reduces freedom of speech around abortion clinics because someone didn’t like what certain people were saying. I know you don’t agree with the protesters and neither do I. But it is their 1st amendment right to free speech and protest that is being impinged upon. And that doesn’t concern you? Do you approve of “free speech zones?”

            And the argument that the buffer zone will be easier to enforce is a rather spurious claim. Will there be a line? What exactly delineates a “protester?”

            This whole thing is going to fail miserably when challenged in court.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I don’t care what they say or what they believe, But I don’t see why they should have the right to approach me, try to talk to me and follow me while they’re doing it. Do you?

          • Shan

            “I don’t see why they should have the right to approach me, try to talk to me and follow me”

            So maybe that’s what Von means by saying “there are laws against that.”

            The problem is, those laws aren’t being enforced. So it’s being kicked up a notch. Not being a lawyer myself, I don’t know how that works after that point.

          • Jennifer Starr

            To be honest, I don’t know either. But I don’t have the time or the money to hire lawyers, pursue charges, testify in court, etc. I’d rather get the needed healthcare and avoid the harassment in the first place.

          • Shan

            “I don’t have the time or the money to hire lawyers, pursue charges, testify in court, etc.”

            That’s what the harassers count on, and that’s one of the things Unicorn is pointing out.

          • Unicorn Farm

            This- exactly this, over and over again ^ infinity.

            Honestly, even as a lawyer, I would be very unlikely to actually pursue legal action against someone for harassing me. It would be too costly, emotionally draining, and time consuming.

            I can only imagine that a woman who had even fewer resources than I am lucky to have would feel the same way.

          • VonRecklingHause

            The things is, if the current laws aren’t enforced, what makes you think the new law will be enforced?

            How about we try making the police enforce the current law which allows for free speech and would also prohibit protesters from harassing the people at the clinic? That way we wouldn’t have to sacrifice the 1st amendment for it.

          • Jennifer Starr

            It would depend on how you define harassment. I consider coming up along beside me, walking beside me, trying to thrust a pamphlet in my hand while telling me that ‘I don’t have to do this, we have resources, we can give you an ultrasound’ to be harassment, because I don’t want to hear it. I don’t want to be approached by this person, I don’t want to have to engage with them, hear their spiel or any of it. And I don’t think I should have to.

          • L-dan

            Not just that, but given the widely publicized violence done by these folks, I’m going to be honestly nervous about physical safety with people acting like this and getting into my personal space. In a stand your ground state, I’d possibly be justified shooting people acting like this.

          • Jennifer Starr

            In the ’80s and ’90s police were always being called to remove protesters who were blocking the doors, had chained or handcuffed themselves together or even welded themselves to something. That’s why we passed the FACE act. Once they realized they faced a hefty fine or jail time, it kind of dulled their taste for those behaviors. And aggressive sidewalk ‘counseling’–aka harassment–is why we need a buffer zone between protesters and patients.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “The things is, if the current laws aren’t enforced, what makes you think the new law will be enforced?”

            Because, as I explained to you- it is EASIER to decide whether someone crossed a literal line- i.e. came too close- versus whether someone met the legal definition of “harassment”. You can literally use a g’damned measuring tape. Plus, this law has the added, very real, benefit of preventing harassment BEFORE IT OCCURS.

            “That way we wouldn’t have to sacrifice the 1st amendment for it.”

            You assume your own conclusion- that a buffer zone of X feet “sacrifices the first amendment”

            Logical fallacies 101.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Did they make you take a Constitutional law class in the 4th tier law school you went to?

          • Unicorn Farm

            “Did they make you take a Constitutional law class in the 4th tier law school you went to?”

            Which part of the above post is incorrect?

          • Mirable

            When in doubt, always go for either the:

            1) dick joke

            2) ad hom

          • Unicorn Farm

            Ideally, combine the two!

            In any event, I think his silence says it all.

          • Mirable

            I always go for the dick joke. Whether I’m right or wrong – cus I’m cool like that

          • L-dan

            So, basically as soon as there’s a point you have trouble actually refuting, you just go to attacking the person rather than the argument? You’re not really engendering a lot of confidence in your own grasp of Constitutional law this way.

          • cjvg

            The supreme court agrees with her, but I guess that is just a trifle tidbit of inconvenience to you!

            http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/Curricula/EducationforFreedom/supportpages/L04-LimitsFreedomSpeech.htm

            Roth v. United States (1957)

            Roth v. United States is the landmark case where the Supreme Court rules that that ‘obscene’ material has no protection under the First Amendment. It thus creating the one exception to free speech protections that does not involve demonstrable threats to the lives and property of others (it’s an exception involving nothing more than material which disturbs, offends, or upsets viewers. it’s entirely a matter of the (subjective) standards of whomever is offended)
            The fact is that women who seek reproductive health care have a much stronger case and often legitimately fear for their safety, privacy and or life and that completely validates this buffer zone!

            Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier 1988
            The Court upheld the decision of public high school administrators at Hazelwood East High School in suburban St. Louis, Mo., to censor stories concerning teen pregnancy and the effects of divorce on children from a school-sponsored student newspaper

            Schenck v. United States 1919
            Frohwerk v. United States 1919
            In both cases the supreme court held that during war time there was no right to freedom of speech if it would interfere with the ability of the government to conduct a war (no protesting the draft or urging young men to civil disobedience when called up)

            The legislation, H.R. 347

          • Shan

            “Did they make you take a Constitutional law class in the 4th tier law school you went to?”

            Dayum. Nice ad feminam flail.

          • VonRecklingHause

            They don’t have the right to follow you. That’s harassment and that’s already illegal.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I really don’t think you’re getting it. I should have the right to get needed healthcare without having to interact with these people in any way beyond seeing the signs and hearing prayers, etc. I should not have to deal with being approached and/or followed by total strangers when going to see a doctor. I really don’t think you understand how frightening and intimidating this can be. I don’t think you get it at all.

          • Shan

            “I don’t think you get it at all.”

            That’s okay, Jennifer. *pats you on head* There’s a law against it.

            *eyeroll*

          • VonRecklingHause

            I do get it. There have been protesters at the clinic in my town.

            The best way to deal with them is to ignore them. If you engage – or become frightened – they have won.

            If they go past the “protesting” line and start harassing, then call the cops.

          • Shan

            If you had to call the cops every time you went to the doctor for a scheduled appointment, how many times would you a) go to the doctor and/or b) call the cops or c) go WTF, why should I have to call the f*cking cops every time I need to go to the doctor and why the f*ck isn’t anybody DOING anything about it?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Why should I even have to go through the trouble of calling the cops? Why should I have to deal with something like this when trying to transact business and receive needed health care? Where’s my freedom? And yeah, buddy it’s real easy to say ‘Oh just ignore them and don’t show fear’–not so easy to do. I’m a five-foot four woman who wears a size six–I’m not exactly what you would call an intimidating presence. And when some six-foot-two guy waving a bible comes up to me–even if he doesn’t touch me and just wants to ‘talk’ or thrust a pamphlet at me, I get scared and shaky–I can’t help it. And frankly I really don’t have a problem with a law that keeps him off in the distance.

          • Shan

            “And when some six-foot-two guy waving a bible comes up to me–even if he
            doesn’t touch me and just wants to ‘talk’ or thrust a pamphlet at me, I
            get scared and shaky–I can’t help it. ”

            What’s the “stand your ground” law in your state? If you live in Florida, you should be golden if you want to plant a clip in the guy.

            *facepalm*

            (facepalm is not at you, Jennifer)

          • Ella Warnock

            So because it’s not a three-ring circus in your town, then it just doesn’t happen anywhere else? Go take a gander at the wacky, fun-loving hijinks of “sidewalk counselors” at a Louisville, KY, abortion clinic at everysaturdaymorning.net. Not that I think you’ll really care or believe any of it. You may very well decide that it’s simply the product of overwrought imaginations in the minds of the escorts, or extreme exaggeration. I would hope you’d give it a fair read, though.

          • Mirable

            Standing in front of a client’s car door so she can’t close it or move the car. Yeah, that’s certainly not harassment, not at all! Besides, if she has a problem, she can just phone the cops! I mean, what if protestors do that to EVERY client? Well, every client can just be on the phone with the cops all the time! I mean, why have buffer zones, when clients can just phone the cops ALL FUCKING DAY LONG to report harassment.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And usually you get some guy asking “Did he touch you? Did he make a threat? Well you can come in and file a report, if you want.” (They don’t tell you that nothing will happen to that report, it’ll just end up in a folder somewhere, but hey, you can file it. )

          • Ella Warnock

            The escorts say that usually it’s not worth it to even call the cops. They’ll either not show up, or just basically tell everybody to settle down and leave. I think something much more aggressive or violent on the part of the antis would be necessary for any useful law enforcement action to be taken.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Let’s be honest here. If all these protesters wanted to do was peacefully wave signs, pray and chant things, the buffer zone wouldn’t even be an issue because those things can be done at a distance. But that isn’t the case. What these people claim when they go to court, what they want–what they’ve always wanted, is the audience of their choice, which is access to patients. They want the freedom to approach them, talk with them, to play pretend ‘counselor’ and give them ‘options’ (again, these people are not licensed to counsel anybody). And I’m sorry, but I don’t think that the first amendment guarantees them access to ‘counsel’ patients, because in my opinion that crosses the line into harassment.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Well said. They want to press the flesh. They are ghouls.

          • cjvg

            And fanatics always follow the law.

            That is why they feel justified in shooting at doctors and staff, firebombing clinics, publicizing the names of women and their private medical information that they “found” etc. etc. because all that is legal too and they are just following the law right!?

            Have fun there in lala land

          • P. McCoy

            These are acts of terror and terrorists don’t have rights. They should be imprisoned.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “These new laws don’t prevent harassment any more than current harassment laws. Harassment was illegal. This new law changes nothing about that.”

            Yes it does. It literally prevents people from coming up to women and accosting them. it literally prevents “protestors” from getting close enough to doctors to stab them, or shoot them at point blank range in the head. How can you not see that? Plus, it adds a separate way for law enforcement to prevent and prosecute harassment- by adding a new law.

            I’ll pull out the same emotive language you’re using- don’t you care about preventing women from being harassed? Harassing women doesn’t concern you? It’s not JUST about the content of the speech in this case- it’s about the harassment. I’m a fan of the first amendment. Woohoo. But it’s not some sacred amendment that can never be “impinged,” as you say. The government can and should limit it, as appropriate. And no, I honestly don’t care if some anti-choice goon has to stand 35 feet away instead of 5 feet away from the clinic door.

            “And the argument that the buffer zone will be easier to enforce is a rather spurious claim.”

            The hell it is. “She’s too close, she crossed a literal line. Officer, please tell her to back off/arrest her.” Plus, this call to the police can be made by a citizen, by the clinic owner, whoever. Versus the process I outlined to you above (and which you did not address) of the steps an individual woman must take to file assault charges.

            I’m out for the night. Won’t bother responding to you again unless you actually try to read what I wrote rather than just reminding me about the first amendment.

          • VonRecklingHause

            If a person wants to stab a doctor (which is already illegal), this law will do exactly zero to prevent that.

            All of the reasons that you’ve stated for this law are already illegal.

            As an alleged lawyer, surely you know that.

          • Ella Warnock

            “Alleged lawyer.” Snerk. Take THAT, UnicormFarm!

          • VonRecklingHause

            Yes. Alleged. As in, she’s provided not proof that she is a lawyer and it’s the internet.

            Alleged.

          • Ella Warnock

            Yes, just you’re “allegedly” pro-choice.

          • VonRecklingHause

            If I wasn’t pro-choice, why do you feel like I wouldn’t openly tell you?

            That’s just paranoid. Why? Because I don’t agree with people on here about stupid buffer laws?

            If anti-choice people are harassing people, call the police. The are already laws that prevent harassment.

          • Jennifer Starr

            We have actually had concern trolls in here who pretend to be pro-choice, but they have ‘concerns’–they think we’re handling things the wrong way, isn’t abortion dangerous–what about those women with regrets, etc. I’m not directly accusing you but it is actually a tactic that’s been used in the past.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “That’s just paranoid. Why? Because I don’t agree with people on here about stupid buffer laws?”

            Not any more paranoid than thinking I don’t have a law degree.

            Maybe if you lived in a world where people behaved as if they had the right to access your body at all times, you wouldn’t think buffer laws were “stupid.”

          • VonRecklingHause

            I don’t think you have a law degree because you lack a fundamental knowledge of Constitutional law and why this law is unconstitutional.

            But go ahead and tell us which law school you went to.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Why don’t you explain how I am wrong? I am not arguing that ALL buffer laws are automatically constitutional. They *can* be, or they might not be. It depends. My argument on this thread has always been that 1) buffer laws serve additional purposes above and beyond what protections are already provided by laws against harassment and assault, and 2) that restrictions on speech are not automatically unconstitutional. You have utterly failed to respond, much less disprove, either of those points.

            I went to a top 20 law school on scholarship ’cause I didn’t feel like paying for the Ivy League/ T14, clerked for a federal judge, and now am in private practice. I had the 3rd highest grade in my constitutional law class of 100ish people. Not that you’d believe me.

          • PetrovaFossil

            I have found that many who fancy themselves to be “experts” in Constitutional law, are actually equally expert as those who are radical fundamentalist theocrats who fancy themselves to be “experts” in their respective cult’s Holy Book.

            Which is to say, both types of self-proclaimed “experts” have assiduously cherry-picked their source documents for those (usually non-contextual) sentence fragments that support and defend their limited worldview.

          • cjvg

            That is a lovely little rant, try substituting pro-choice with lawyer and see your own words call you out!

            Look I did it for you;
            If I wasn’t a lawyer, why do you feel like I wouldn’t openly tell you?
            That’s just paranoid. Why? Because I don’t agree with you about stupid buffer laws?

            How embarrassing for you!

          • Ella Warnock

            Aaaand, nobody’s prohibited from speaking and waving abortion porn signs.

            Nope, still not prohibited.

            Wait a minute . . . nope, still free to blather on in public about murdering babybeez.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Ehrmegherd, I am soooo embarrassed, wait, maybe I don’t actually have a law degree, and my wimmin brain is confused. Perhaps I will look at my degree and court admissions just to check!!!

          • Ella Warnock

            You don’t need to do all that. You just need to ask Vonwrecking if you’re a lawyer. He knoweth all.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Oh good lord. What do you want, my bar number?

            “If a person wants to stab a doctor (which is already illegal), this law will do exactly zero to prevent that. ”

            Citation needed.

            Are you aware that we can make NEW laws to make activities that were previously legal, illegal? Just because harassment is illegal, that doesn’t preclude a city from deciding it wants to make standing within 35 feet of a clinic and “counseling” illegal. You still haven’t responded to my actual points.

          • cjvg

            So if they don’t why then are all these “protesters” so opposed if it changes nothing at all?!

            Apparently it must change their opportunities significantly enough that they do not want to have to abide by these NEW laws.

            If these protesters are willing to burn money on a court case to have it not become the law, your assessment of the uselessness of this law is obviously not as accurate as you wish us to believe! !

          • Unicorn Farm

            “So if they don’t why then are all these “protesters” so opposed if it changes nothing at all?!

            Apparently it must change their opportunities significantly enough that they do not want to have to abide by these NEW laws.”

            Bingo.

          • cjvg

            Logic and reason, such dirty words women should be forbidden to use them.
            Want to bet he is going to ignore this, just like all the others he can not refute!

          • Jennifer Starr

            Ever wonder why the anti-choicers backed off from the clinic blockades and the sit-ins they used to engage in all the time? It’s because of the 1994 FACE act. Laws do change things.

          • Ella Warnock

            Okay, let it play out in court, then. I’ve got no problem with that.

          • expect_resistance

            This will stand up in court because they modeled it after the Colorado law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hill v. Colorado.

          • cjvg

            It can never be made enough times, thank you for this

          • L-dan

            Thank you for making this point, and others above. It certainly helps clear up the actual legal elements.

          • Mirable

            Are you a libertarian?

          • VonRecklingHause

            On most things. Does that make me a bad person?

          • Mirable

            No. It’s your bigotry that makes you a bad person.

          • VonRecklingHause

            What? How am I a bigot exactly?

          • Unicorn Farm

            Not surprised. Poorly though-out positions seem to be a hallmark.

          • cjvg

            We can not even get rape treated as the crime the law says it is.
            What makes you think the law is going to treat screaming at women as being of any consequence at all

          • cjvg

            Not mutually exclusive

          • colleen2

            You want to scream at someone? Go for it.

            No. The entire point is that we would prefer not to be screamed at and threatened and denigrated by the religious right.
            “Free speech” DOES NOT mean that anyone has to listen to proselytizing members of the religious right anymore than the Catholic Bishops have to listen to feminists.
            Also, note how your idiot argument ignores the fact that the protesters speech CAN be heard. Just not dso closely that the abusive sons of bitches can actually HURT someone.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Hurting someone is already illegal under previous law and the 1994 FACE Act.

            But thanks for calling people who disagree with you “idiots.”

            Maybe we should call that “psychologically abusive” and have you banned from commenting under a new law. After all, we wouldn’t someone to get hurt by your rude comments.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I generally call people who stand outside clinics and attempt to bother patients by claiming to want to counsel them loonies. Most of them are mentally unsound. But idiot will do as well.

          • colleen2

            But thanks for calling people who disagree with you “idiots.”

            You’re more than welcome.

          • expect_resistance

            If we protested churches they would have us arrested for protesting without a permit, rioting, disorderly conduct, or some other stupid trumped-up charge. The anits think they have a “God given” right to abusively force their views on us.

          • anja

            Religiously bigoted people in power would make up new anti-protest rules specific to protesting their churches and arrest anybody who tired to protest. It’s happened in WI & TX and probably a lot of other places.

          • lady_black

            Jehovah’s Witnesses have the right not to donate blood, or accept donated blood. They don’t have the right to scream at blood donors, or walk into a hospital and scream at people having blood transfusions. That’s unacceptable.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Do you feel obligated let them in when they come to your home? I mean, after all, you wouldn’t want to curtail their speech or anything.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Jennifer,

            The freedom of speech is between individuals and the gov’t. Not two private citizens.

            Civics 101.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And I’m a private citizen, not the government. Anti-choice protesters are private citizens who don’t have a first amendment right to attempt to ‘counsel’ me when I’m going to my doctor’s office.

          • PetrovaFossil

            “The freedom of speech is between individuals and the gov’t. Not two private citizens.”

            You are, of course, aware that your brief comment above perfectly encapsulates the position that a private citizen (ergo, a meddlesome self-appointed scold and forced-birth advocate) does not enjoy any “freedom of speech” rights between his/her self and another private citizen (patient accessing medical care in a medical facility).

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, actually, I’d really like to hear you address this point. Do you think a private citizen becomes ‘the government’ and therefore ‘fair game’ for protesters simply because they’re accessing legal medical services? Keep in mind that the main reason that these anti-choicers are complaining about the buffer zone is that it denies them access to speak with patients–i.e. private citizens.

          • VonRecklingHause

            The law if enforced by the gov’t. This isn’t difficult to understand how this could be a first amendment issue and, let’s say, a website deleting comments, would not be.

            I’m kind of saddened that this really needs to be explained. It’s like people didn’t bother to pay attention in high school social studies.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, the right to talk to me,a private citizen conducting private medical business, is not a first amendment issue. They can say whatever they want to say to me from 160 feet away. If I feel like coming up to talk to them I might deign to do so, but they do not need to approach me.

          • VonRecklingHause

            So let’s clear this up.

            Them approaching you = illegal.
            You approaching them = legal.

            Yikes, I wouldn’t want you on a jury.

          • Jennifer Starr

            If they’re calling out to me, there’s an assumption that they want my company. And I might give it to them if I want. But I don’t owe them my company or time simply by virtue of going into a clinic to access healthcare. And neither does any other woman.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Great. Then if you don’t want to talk to them….don’t. And walk right into the clinic.

            If they impede your entry, they are breaking the FACE Act and can be arrested, so call the cops.

          • Jennifer Starr

            They can say what they need to say just as easily from 160 feet away. They are not entitled to an approach.

          • expect_resistance

            And how many times has the FACE Act been violated? Or enforcement of it has been ignored by the cops? Just saying.

          • VonRecklingHause

            So the argument is what exactly?

            The FACE Act didn’t work? And that cops refuse to enforce it?

            Well, ok. That may be a valid point. But what makes you think the cops will magically change attitudes and now enforce the new law?

          • expect_resistance

            I don’t trust the police.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Neither do I. So what’s the answer? We pass more laws the police won’t enforce while at the same time chipping away at the firs amendment.

            Sorry, I’m not willing to go that route.

          • expect_resistance

            If you don’t trust them why would you tell us to call them?

          • Ella Warnock

            Because FACE Act. And abortion. And being 160 feet away = duct tape over the mouths of every protester.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Because what’s the alternative? Getting in an altercation with the protesters?

            Yeah, I’m going to call the police first and see what happens.

          • Jennifer Starr

            One of the reason why clinic escorts can be such a godsend, because they create a barrier of sorts between the patient and the protester. Of course, that doesn’t seem to stop the anti-choice whingeing that they’re being ‘denied access’ that they have no right to in the first place.

          • Ella Warnock

            Don’t you mean “deathscorts,” Jennifer?

          • Jennifer Starr

            LOL–oh yeah–the ‘deathscort’ thing. And before VonRecklingHause makes a comment, no, I do not mind being approached by a legal employee or volunteer of the clinic that I came to do business with in first place. There is a difference in that and being approached by a protester.

          • Jennifer Starr

            When I stand in the forty foot buffer zone in front of the polling place, I wear a t-shirt advertising my candidate (and I have a jacket to cover it up if I go into the polling place.) If someone walks by I might say ‘Good morning, please consider our candidate”, but I do not move towards them in any way. But anyone wishing to approach me and and talk to me may do so, And if they ask for a pamphlet, sticker, etc I will give one to them. But only if they ask. And I don’t feel as if I’m being curtailed in any way.

          • PetrovaFossil

            I am somewhat amused that people believe that supercilious insults legitimize invalid logic and positions.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Says the person who doesn’t understand the importance of gov’t vs. private in terms of the First Amendment.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I am not a government official. Neither is Petrova.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Never said you were dear.

          • PetrovaFossil

            You asserted that intrusive, harassing protests by a private citizen upon another private citizen as “freedom of speech” are not valid.

            You then asserted that if legal intervention is brought to bear upon those private citizens, should they decide to engage in invalid violation of the First Amendment upon other private citizens, that such intervention then constitutes a legitimate “freedom of speech” scenario that protects the rights, hitherto non-existent, of a private citizen to stalk and harass, and otherwise interfere with the rights of, a private citizen.

            And in continuing to try and walk back this mess, you continue to engage in supercilious insults – as if they legitimize your invalid logic and positions.

          • VonRecklingHause

            gov’t vs private—–you still don’t get it.

          • PetrovaFossil

            I’m explaining it exactly as you did. You argued that legal protection of private citizens from invalid attempts at intrusive “free speech” by other private citizens results in legitimizing invalid intrusive “free speech” by private citizen upon private citizen.

          • VonRecklingHause

            No, the argument I made (read the thread before commenting) was that not allowing someone into you private residence is not a violation of the 1st amendment because one private citizen is not capable of restricting the 1st amendment rights of another individual.

            That role is exclusively held by the gov’t and it’s actors.

            So, please, get your facts straight and then come talk to me.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Actually, this is the first time you’ve mentioned the private residence. Are you saying that people are only private citizens when they’re inside their dwellings?

          • PetrovaFossil

            I do find quite amusing the supercilious “read the thread before commenting” admonishment, considering as “private residence” has just made its debut into the floundering argument of VRH. I wonder if s/he intends to walk that invalid logic back even further, by editing all of his/her entries as regards “private citizens”?

          • VonRecklingHause

            reread the thread.

          • VonRecklingHause

            You were the one who brought up private residence. Do I need to quote it for you?

            And that doesn’t matter. A private citizen cannot be accused of violating free speech laws regardless of their location. Only the gov’t can be accused of that. That’s how it works. Not hard to understand.

            Civic 101, again.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So someone having to speak to me from 160 feet away is not a first-amendment violation.

          • VonRecklingHause

            When it’s implemented BY THE GOVERNMENT it very well may be.

            That’s for the courts to decide. And it looks like a lawsuit against the city has already been filed at the end of last week.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And what if I were to implement a buffer zone on myself–that loonies can’t come within 160 feet of me without my say-so when I go to a clinic? Yes, I’m being facetious, but you’ve yet to explain why the right to directly approach patients is a first-amendment right of these protesters, and why they can’t be content with simply holding signs and praying at a distance.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Because the first amendment and the FACE Act allow for approaching people and talking to them. It doesn’t allow for assaulting them. Or impedeing them, or trespassing, or stalking. When someone approaches you, you have no obligation to stay and listen to what they are saying and they have no right to keep you from leaving.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, I’m sorry. Most of these people are mentally unstable, some with criminal records. Terrorist Paul Hill started out as a clinic protester, remember. So did Scott Roeder. And I disagree with the fact that they can claim a ‘right to counsel’ strangers, given the fact that they’re not licensed to counsel anyone and even if they were, that’s not the way real counselors are supposed to operate. No, they can do what they do from a distance.

          • PetrovaFossil

            As of the current moment – that is to say, before you have an opportunity to amend your previous “private citizen” comments in this thread to include the all-new variable (as of approximately 21:10 GMT on 2 March 2014) of “private residence” – it appears that it is you that is unable to “get your facts straight”.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Oh, so now I’m editing my comments….

            Paranoid much?

            Next time, try reading the thread before commenting.

            “Jennifer Starr

            20 hours ago

            Do you feel obligated let them in when they come to your home? I
            mean, after all, you wouldn’t want to curtail their speech or anything.”

            To which I replied “Jennifer, The violations of freedom of speech are between individuals and the gov’t. Not two private citizens. Civics 101.”

            So, yeah, get your facts straight next time Petrova.

          • PetrovaFossil

            My facts are correct. You never mentioned “private residence”. You’re still trying to walk back your convoluted apologetics by attributing the statements of others to yourself. The proviso you’re now attempting to catapult, that the private citizen must “come to your home” in order to violate the First Amendment, cannot even vaguely be assumed in your response.

          • VonRecklingHause

            1. I didn’t say that a private citizen necessarily needs to come to your home to violate the first amendment. I was respinding to another commented who brought that up. Pay attention. AND if you read the comment more carefully, you see that I stated that a private citizens would NOT be able to violate the first amendment.

            Just give up Petrova. You either know that private citizens cannot be in violation of the first amendment by restricting the free speech of another private citizen and you are trolling….or you are an idiot who needs to study how the US gov’t works.

            So what is it?

            1. Trolling
            2. Idiot.

          • lady_black

            That means They have no right to talk to me… right? Thank you.

          • Mindy McIndy

            That’s you. That’s not all of the population. Anyone trying to get in the middle of me and a private medical decision, whether it be an abortion, blood donation or a heart transplant, is a piece of filth.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            What the protestors do is assault by definition. You lost the argument right here.
            …..
            Assault

            At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

            An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

          • fiona64

            Shouting at someone *is* assault, sweetie. Battery is what it’s called once they touch you, shove something in your hands, etc.

      • cjvg

        They can still say whatever they want. There is no constitutional right to get in my face and follow me around trying to make me a captive audience to your thoughts. No one is stopping them from speaking, have at it!

      • fiona64

        Free speech from a distance is still free speech. Speaking your mind doesn’t give you the right to a captive audience.

      • expect_resistance

        No.

      • Mirable

        Your free speech is curtailed because you can’t walk onto the white house front stoop and complain. Heck, wtf can’t you complain in the oval office? Your right to free speech is being restricted!

      • lady_black

        Your free speech rights end where my ears begin. Free speech rights don’t involve a captive audience in the form of someone who is just trying to enter their doctor’s office (or anywhere else for that matter). Speak all you wish. Nobody has to listen to you.

      • BJ Survivor

        Forced-birther protesters free speech is not being violated by buffer zones. They are still able to holler all the misogynistic bible-babbling they want, but at a much less intimidating distance. Sorry, but free speech does not give one the right to intimidate others.

      • Jennifer Starr

        In my state if I go to a polling place on election day to promote a certain candidate or party, I am required to stay at least forty feet away from the doors of the polling place. And I cannot wear any pins or visible clothing supporting a certain candidate if I go inside to vote myself. Is my free speech in that instance being curtailed? Because I don’t think it is.

      • colleen2

        The ‘free speech’ of the religious right should not mean we have to have escorts so that the loving religious right does not physically injure or psychologically abuse women and girls. ‘Free speech’ does not means that others should have to listen to sexist abuse dressed up as religion.

      • red_zone

        No one is stopping you from speaking.

        This is a law that says people who are the targets of such speech should not be FORCED to listen to it.

        • VonRecklingHause

          Protecting the citizens from hearing other people’s opinions is not a compelling state interest.

          Protecting the citizen from physical harm is.

          Once you sort those two out, come talk to me. Unicorn Farm can help you with that. She’s a lawyer who almost was smart enough to go to a top 10 law school. Almost

  • Mindy McIndy

    These people really need to find something better to do with your lives. Get a hobby. Knit booties for babies in foster care.

  • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

    Thank you God and the City of Madison. Hoorah!

  • expect_resistance

    Applause for Madison!

    Smart move to model it after the Colorado law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hill v. Colorado.

  • Jessica

    sidewalk counselors….hhhmm… can i see your medical degree. those people are nothing more than bullies.

  • five_by_five

    Looks like the pro-abortion crowd can’t handle the realities of abortion.

    No no…we wouldn’t want to harass those poor women getting abortions with pictures of aborted fetuses or anything. That might hurt their feelings.

    • lady_black

      You try shoving pictures of anything in my face, and I’ll hurt more than your feelings. Step off, crazy.

      • VonRecklingHause

        Are you really threatening violence to support our side?

        Please don’t. You make pro-choicers look irrational and violent – as opposed to the truth which is that pro-lifers have been the ones who have been violent.

        • Jennifer Starr

          Yes, pro-lifers have been known to be violent–which is a really good reason for having them keep their distance.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Well I’m glad there are already laws for that.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So what’s wrong with letting them protest at a distance?

          • Ella Warnock

            Because you can’t shove little plastic fetii in people’s hands from 160 feet away, hurr durr.

          • L-dan

            I’m waiting to see someone actually try foisting off an argument that free speech includes their right to actually hand you things. Because there’s so many ways that’s a big nope.

          • Ella Warnock

            People are rather lazy and depend on aggression and surprise tactics to throw the less confident off balance. Just let whatever is is fall to the ground, then stand there watching their bravado wither as they gather up their trash. I do wish more women would realize that they can shift the balance of power in their favor. I wish I could give everyone that confidence.

          • lady_black

            That would be my way of handling it. except I would pointedly crumple it.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Smoosh the plastic fetii underfoot.

          • VonRecklingHause

            I guess you don’t understand the “free” part of “free speech.”

            Also, if you noticed about the law, it doesn’t uniformly restrict free speech – which might actually be a defensible position. It specifically outlaws protests outside healthcare clinics. It picks and chooses when and where certain types of protesters can be. That’s clearly unconstitutional and is most certainly going to be overturned.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah they said the same thing about the national DNC list and it didn’t fly–someone’s right to free speech does not give the the right to an audience or the right to bother people who do not want to be bothered.

          • Mirable

            acyutananda

          • Jennifer Starr

            Exactly–that’s the one :)

          • Mirable

            Yeah. He’s just made an appearance on TFA again. With a long post that causes migraines.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh good lord. Another five-dollar word novel. I’m beginning to think that his method of debate is to bore us to tears.

          • cjvg

            And I guess you do not understand the “life” part in our constitution.

            Women have a right to ensure that they receive health care so they can live that they can continue on with life.

            Your free speech does not trump the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness of others.

            Every single pregnancy has the risk of death and irreparable harm no matter how healthy you are. NO doctor will guarantee you that you will stay alive when you are pregnant

            I guess you are also objecting mightily to the Do Not Call list, since it is stifling the free speech of merchants!

          • VonRecklingHause

            Just for your own edification:

            “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is part of the Declaration of Independence. Not the Constitution.

            However, “life, liberty, or property” is part of the Bill of Rights.

            FYI.

          • Shan

            Why are you nitpicking, Von?

          • VonRecklingHause

            Because people who confuse the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution annoy me. Probably more so than the idiot who were protesting at the local Planned Parenthood a few months ago.

          • Shan

            “Probably more so than the idiot who were protesting at the local Planned Parenthood a few months ago.”

            That’s only because they’re not up in your space making you feel physically threatened. Jesus HMS Christ, you really do not have a clue.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’m beginning to think that he doesn’t want to have a clue. He refuses to acknowledge or address any of the points we’ve made and he just keeps repeating the same stuff over and over–I feel like I keep going around and around with him and I’m not getting anywhere.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            When you get that feeling, you are being trolled. It plays a decent game of “broken record” and “yes, but …”.

          • VonRecklingHause

            If they were up in my space, I’d tell them to fuck off and walk by.
            And then ignore them.

            What’s so hard about that?

          • Mirable

            That will only work if they will listen to you.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Yeah. And their taunts will only work if you listen to them.

            so….don’t listen to them.

          • Mirable

            easier said than done

            also, they block your mobility

          • Jennifer Starr

            No reason why anyone should have to be taunted in the first place.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Spoken like a man who has never had his body treated like it was public property. Classic.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, trust me, they don’t generally listen. Particularly if they think you’re a pregnant woman–then you’re regarded as public property. I once had an anti-choicer tell me that he felt like he was the brother of each woman’s fetus and therefore it was his duty to protect it.

          • expect_resistance

            Because they don’t shut the fuck up. They keep talking and talking more and more bullshit about baaabeeees. Puke. Maybe puking on them would solve it.

          • cjvg

            That and more importantly the fact that it gave you an easy out so you could ignore the question I posed to you!

            Of course annoying you is a much more severe offense then harassing and intimidating women who are seeking needed healthcare!

            So glad to see you understand what priorities are!
            Now go kick a kid or a woman who dared to get in the way of the magnificent you

          • cjvg

            Still waiting for you to address the real issue !

          • cjvg

            You are right on that, still does not address the question I posed you!

            Bill of Rights, as in these rights apply to everyone except women seeking reproductive care?!

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            “It specifically outlaws protests outside healthcare clinics.”
            …………
            Lie. You are beat down if you have to attempt a lie. WE WON. YOU lose.
            Protests may and will go on.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Well, it’s not setting up a barriers to keep protesters around grocery stores…or banks….is it?

            So how is what I told a lie?

          • Mirable

            What if the KKK set up round the clock protests outside a black community centre and shouted into the faces of black people coming and going?

          • VonRecklingHause

            Call the cops for “disturbing the peace.”

            Problem solved.

          • Mirable

            Why would it be solved?

          • cjvg

            he next woman and the next and the next, day after day after day quite an inefficient use of police power! I guess the rest of society should just deal with it that these “protesters” should be indulged and the rest of us should not except that the cops have time for their normal job!

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes, he seems to be under the impression that the cops have unlimited manpower and resources.

          • cjvg

            Oh he knows they do, he is banking on that to continue the status quo and his unrestricted harassment of women.

          • cjvg

            There is no existing problem with protesters that are harassing and intimidating patrons who want to enter these places. If there was a large and wide spread problem with such the law would most certainly address it swiftly

            Why are you attempting to show case a non existing problem as the reason for not addressing an existing problem?
            This makes you look extremely ignorant and profoundly impaired in reason and logic department, not a credit to your stance at all

          • VonRecklingHause

            You obviously missed the entire OWS movement and anytime grocery store workers have gone on strike in California.

            And I’m the one who’s ignorant?

          • L-dan

            As in, either of those groups were harassing and intimidating patrons? My experience with the latter was not one of harassment or intimidation, though I’ll grant that I hardly saw every picket.

            As for OWS, my perception was that law enforcement tended to be overzealous in enforcement rather than allowing harassment and intimidation to take place.

            Neither of these sounds like the situation with anti-abortion protesters at clinics.

          • cjvg

            Just saw your post after I edited mine adding a paragraph saying essentially the same. Oh well it is not like he can not use a bit more information!

          • cjvg

            The right to strike is NOT a free speech problem, why do you continually attempt to compare apples and oranges and then proceed to claim a gotcha

            As for the OWS movement, how many years have they continuously blocked and protested the same businesses? Yeah, so not working for you!

            Neither of these groups have violently murdered employees of these places or fire bombed the institutions they protest. Neither of these groups harassed the customers/clients who were availing themselves of the services of these business

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            You do not read what you type?

            I specified what the lie was. You cannnot read?

            You said the law “outlaws protests.” The law does not do that at all. Get it now, Stupido.

          • lady_black

            It “picks and chooses” because people have a specific right to harassment-free healthcare. You don’t understand because you’re a male, and no religious whack-a-doos are picketing your urologist’s office. For some reason, nobody cares if men get birth control, or ED medication, or get treated for STDs. It’s women who are being singled out. Not protesters. Any failure to see that is incredibly DENSE.

          • cjvg

            Reality has borne out that the existing laws are not sufficient. As is common in such cases, new and better laws were proposed and accepted to address that!

          • L-dan

            Freedom of speech does not equal freedom to speak everywhere and anywhere. You may not go stand in a hospital waiting room loudly proclaiming the end times, though you’re free to do so down on the street corner. You don’t get to stand in a library…which is a public space…singing protest songs because it disturbs the ability of everyone else to use said public space and utility. You are generally going to be hauled away if you are interrupting a speaker at an event, though you’re welcome to stand outside an lecture as people are entering or leaving.

            So no, having to speak at a distance where one’s targets can’t be spit on is not limiting their freedom of speech.

          • Mirable

            You may not go stand in a hospital waiting room loudly proclaiming the end times,

            Fu I’ll do what I want.

          • L-dan

            :p

            Point. You may not do so and expect not to get thrown out.

          • Jennifer Starr

            This–so perfectly stated. Thank you.

          • expect_resistance

            Great post.
            When you said, “You may not go stand in a hospital waiting room loudly proclaiming the end times” This made me giggle. :) If someone did this they might be hauled off to a 72-hour psych hold.

          • Unicorn Farm

            ” It picks and chooses when and where certain types of protesters can be. That’s clearly unconstitutional”

            WHY. If you’re so good at constitutional law, tell us why.

            “Almost certainly unconstitutional” my ass. Read Hill v. Colorado.

            Lord. It’s a basic TMP restriction. Whether the Roberts Court* will see it that way is always up for debate, of course, but to act like this is some completely insane, new, totally outrageous unprecedented ‘restriction’ on the first amendment is idiocy.

            *I’m clearly going have to become UnicornFarm, Inc., to really retain my full suite of rights to personhood and speech as far as the Chief Justice is concerned.

          • cjvg

            Lets start incorporating wombs and make women the senior vice presidents with full veto rights!

          • expect_resistance

            Honestly I think this is what we might have to do.

          • cjvg

            I’m afraid that the current political climate will then attempt to prohibit women from having the right to incorporate and hold property!
            Other then that it is certainly starting to look like a better option.
            Of course like any other business we should also be able to claim tax breaks for the depreciation of the equipment when it ages and loses much of its functionality (this is looking better and better)

          • Ella Warnock

            Particularly when the property she attempts to hold is her own body.

          • cjvg

            Oh the horror, the world will surely end if women are allowed to own property, or worse own their own bodies.

            What you say, they already have that right and the world has not ended yet?! Quick quick reverse it before the world figures that out and ends!

            And there in a nutshell is the problem with the world!

          • expect_resistance

            “UnicornFarm, Inc.” I love it. (BTW like your name)

          • Unicorn Farm

            :)

            Unicorn s*t smells a lot nicer than concern troll s*t.

          • PetrovaFossil

            To the contrary – it is clear to most who are reading this that it is actually you who does not understand what “free speech” entails.

          • lady_black

            Nobody is saying they have to stand at a distance with a ball-gag in their mouth. Free speech isn’t a right to be heard.

          • Mirable

            hawt

          • Shan

            I know, right? I like that image, too.

          • cjvg

            No it does not pick and choose certain type of protesters, it uniformly prohibit protesting outside health clinics regardless of what you are protesting!
            If you want to protests puppy mills in the vicinity of a health care clinic that would be prohibited too!
            Your reasoning is faulty again.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Desperation. Back to a point already refuted. Some folks are graceful in defeat. Not you.

          • VonRecklingHause

            How has the point that there are already laws that prohibit harassment been “already refuted?”

            Are you trying to say those laws don’t exist?

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Loser. And the really priceless thing about this message is that it proves that you either do not read what we type to you at all, or that you use toddler defenses when defeated.

        • cjvg

          She is threatening violence in self defense, it is legal for women to defend themselves from bodily harm you know

          • VonRecklingHause

            She threatened to inflict violence for someone showing her a picture.

            How is someone showing her a picture now “bodily harm?”

          • cjvg

            Mental health is still considered a significant and real aspect of the body.

          • VonRecklingHause

            There have been documented cases of new onset mental health disorders associated with showing someone a picture?

            Could you support that claim with a link?

          • cjvg

            It does not have to be new it can aggravate an existing trauma from a miscarriage, surgery, birth, etc. It is not up to you to decide what is an acceptable amount of gruesomeness a person should be forced to deal with for the benefit of another’s believes.

            Society at large has adopted certain standards of civility so we can all live together. Your believe that you are so special that you should have the right to force others to deal with your arbitrary and cruel behavior does not benefit civilization and as such is considered anti-social and needlessly cruel

            “There have been documented cases of new onset mental health disorders associated with showing someone a picture?”
            Why are you making up statements that I never made? It does not benefit your argument to lie about others, so can dishonestly use your lie to discredit the stance of your opponent.

          • Shan

            The gruesome pictures are part of the harassment. No link necessary.

          • lady_black

            The ones with mental health problems are the ones telling men accompanying a woman (who may be a relative or just a friend) that “they’ll be the father of a dead baby.” These people don’t know who they are harassing, and they don’t give a damn. They deserve anything they get. I can’t work up a lot of sympathy for them, no matter how hard I try. Sorry.

          • Ella Warnock

            “Be a real man and take your woman out of there! How can you allow her to do this?”

            Allow. That pretty much sums it up, all right.

          • lady_black

            I didn’t say “showing me a picture.” I said shoving one in my face. When you try to hand someone literature, they can say no. Try to push and I’ll push back.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            He is gaslighting us. Which is abuse.

            And He argues by misquotation. Which is tacky.

            He keeps himself ignorant of the fact that he is unethical while calling on others to be ethical.

        • lady_black

          Nope. I’m not threatening anything. That’s not a threat. It’s a promise. I WILL defend myself against unstable types.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Actually, that’s a threat.

            And you’re quite unstable. The protesters probably have more to worry about you hurting them than the other way around.

            Violence is not the answer.

          • Mirable

            oh puh-leeez

          • lady_black

            As long as they respect my personal space, they have nothing to fear from me. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.

          • PetrovaFossil

            If you would be so kind, would you please provide guidance on how a patient, attempting to access medical care, should treat a perfect stranger who is stalking and harassing her, and attempting to impede her access, whom she has not invited or provoked to do so?

          • VonRecklingHause

            Call the cops.

          • PetrovaFossil

            But you’ve already asserted that the forced-birth activists have First Amendment rights to stalk, harass, and otherwise attempt to impede access for patients at a medical facility.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Huh? Wrong. I’ve never stated that those things are their right.

            FACE Act of 1994. Read it.

            Be informed.

          • PetrovaFossil

            You are arguing that buffer zones violate some assumed (by you) First Amendment rights for private citizens to stalk, harass, and otherwise impede access for private citizens at a medical facility.

        • lady_black

          Oh and I am not on your side. What’s this “our side” nonsense? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

          • VonRecklingHause

            ” I am not on your side”

            Are you against reproductive pro-choice?

          • lady_black

            No, just against you.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Why, because I care about free speech, even among those people I think are idiots like anti-choicers?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Their speech does not have to be said within arms reach of a patient in order to be free. Free speech does not entitle you to the audience of your choosing.

        • expect_resistance

          I would say it’s self defense. If someone gets up in my face they will get an earful. When I’m threatened I’m not a nice person. I am scary and if threatened I will fight back.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      You’ve got to accentuate the positive
      Eliminate the negative
      And latch on to the affirmative
      Don’t mess with Mister In-Between

      You’ve got to spread joy up to the maximum
      Bring gloom down to the minimum
      Have faith or pandemonium’s
      Liable to walk upon the scene

    • Ella Warnock

      Eh, I”m not really too bothered by their who-knows-where-it-came-from “abortion” porn. Despite Vonrecklinghause’s insistence that pro-choicers are anti-free speech, they have every right to wave their little signs around.

      • five_by_five

        Young women should know the realities of abortion. It’s not all fun and games and too many people are using abortion as their back-up birth control. Hell, 49% of people getting abortions weren’t even using birth control when they got pregnant.

        But, I’ve never protested. I don’t care that much. If some women are going to make dumb, uninformed decisions, let them.

        • L-dan

          *eyeroll* Yeah, because so many are in danger of thinking an abortion (or nearly any medical procedure) is fun and games.

          Plus, abortion is actually a valid backup birth control method. Plan A doesn’t work? Abortion means not giving birth, hence birth control. Seriously, for someone who doesn’t care much, you really do hang out here spouting nonsense a lot.

          Not that you’re actually addressing anything to do with the law or the discussion. A buffer zone doesn’t keep people from waving pictures around. It doesn’t keep anyone from shouting whatever nonsense they want, even. So I’m not sure why you think a buffer zone somehow means people “can’t handle the realities of abortion.”

          • five_by_five

            Look, I know that you feel strongly about this since you were irresponsible with your birth control and then needed an abortion.

            But you should be encouraging more contraception use (and proper use, L-dan) instead of encouraging abortions.

          • L-dan

            That’s the best you’ve got kid?

            1. Show me where I encouraged abortions vs. contraception. Not that that addresses any actual points .
            2. Nope, I wasn’t remotely irresponsible. But nice use of personal information to troll harder…and still not address anything in the post.
            3. So…dodging the chance to actually engage in any actual points in the post for the opportunity to try derailing the post with personal jabs? Man, you’re not even trying to pretend you’re in this for anything but trollish derailing at this point.

          • cjvg

            Personal attacks and insipid innuendo always makes your argument sooo much more valid.
            Wait you did not have an argument, wow I’m so surprised by the irrelevant nature of your non argument. I guess you are so not above dirt raking!

        • PetrovaFossil

          Because females do not become pregnant alone, I am curious to know the reason why you believe that self-appointed meddlesome scolds should harangue only females.

        • lady_black

          I never thought of any medical procedure as fun and games. In fact it’s something I dread. Even getting my teeth cleaned. I do it because it’s in my best interest.

          • cjvg

            Oh, now just admit it, you miss that abortion high if you haven’t had one for a couple of weeks!

        • Ella Warnock

          Abortion isn’t all fun and games? Say whaaat? Well, slap my ass and call me Sally.

        • cjvg

          Yeah, that is what women think all the time; “lets get pregnant, I just love to spend a couple of hundred dollars so I can have a fun abortion. It is so much more fun paying for an abortion then spending that money on my student loan payment”

          • Ella Warnock

            You know, most women just include it in a spa day. Mani, pedi, deep tissue massage then an abortion. Why do you think the Elizabeth Arden spa is called the “Red Door?”

            And oh, gawd, let me include a sarcasm tag here so no one thinks I’m serious. **eye roll**

          • cjvg

            Oops I forgot the eye roll, sarcasm tag, do you think my comment will now show up as a quote on the anti-choice sites as proof that pro-choicers really really like having those jummy abortions?!

    • expect_resistance

      Your perception of reality is pretty darn skewed.

  • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

    I think all the conversation here must be held up and viewed through the prism of this FACT:

    ILLEGAL ABORTION and sepsis/hemmorhage in CHILDBIRTH are the leading causes of death for women worldwide.

    Fertility is serious business for women. No one has standing to interfere with such business in any way. Abortion/contraception is a human right.

  • VonRecklingHause

    Wow, I never thought I’d see a bunch of people besides right-wingers supporting “free speech zones.”

    Sad.

    • expect_resistance

      It’s not the same. Anti-choices have much more access to harass women as opposed to being in a “free speech zone” were they would be blocks away. Their First Amendment rights are not being infringed on.

      • VonRecklingHause

        So basically this law creates a free speech zone. Just like under Bush.

        I hope your happy. This is a bad precedent.

        • Mirable

          Not being able to stand in someone’s way and shove stuff right up into their face isn’t exactly creating a ‘free speech’ zone.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Ahh, but he’s going to tell you there’s already a law against that, just call the cops, and so on and so forth. *sigh*.

          • Mirable

            Yes. Now he is saying everything will be hunky dory if the cops just enforce the current laws.

          • cjvg

            He is a troll, an unmitigated unapologetic blatant troll!

          • VonRecklingHause

            If they are harassing you, why wouldn’t you call the cops?

          • Mirable

            The cops won’t do anything. Now imagine the protestors are doing this shit 24/7 to every client. Then it gets completely ridiculous. It is far more EFFICIENT to just set up a buffer zone instead of calling cops all of the time who will then file ‘paperwork’ and do nothing about it.

          • VonRecklingHause

            “The cops won’t do anything”

            And this law will change none of that then. Or will the cops now magically start caring?

          • Mirable

            If they have to keep their distance they can’t block you from getting into/out of /moving your car etc.

            Fact is, it’s a waste of resources to keep filing endless paperwork for something that will ONLY get fixed with buffer zone laws. And no, they don’t lose their right to free speech if they can’t yell right into your face

            You have been behaving deliberately obtuse and it’s booooring

          • VonRecklingHause

            But you just said the cops won’t do anything – so why would they keep their distance?

            You’re not making sense.

          • Mirable

            easier to enforce than ‘he said she said’

          • Jennifer Starr

            So why not have a buffer zone? Patient problems solved and much less work for cops. A win all around.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Because, like, the 1st amendment and stuff. But, never mind, that’s not important or anything.

            I just hope you think about these buffer zones the next time people like Occupy Wall street get sent away so the bankers don’t have to be harassed by those evil protesters.

          • Mirable

            It won’t hurt the occupy protestors either if they are prohibited from yelling right in banker’s faces

            besides, as you saw from occupy, the cops care more about bankers than women going to abortion clinics

            bankers get looooots of love. so much love in fact that cops pepper sprayed 80yo women in the face

          • Jennifer Starr

            Only no one’s being ‘sent away’. They can still wave signs, shout, pray and rattle their beads all day long. They’re just being stopped from approaching and accosting patients. That’s it.

          • PetrovaFossil

            If we apply your false equivalency, Occupy would be protesting at the BofA branch inside a supermarket, stalking and harassing customers (whether they bank with BofA or not), and attempting to impede access.

          • VonRecklingHause

            You don’t think that happened?

            You need to pay attention. Google “OWS bank protest” and see how well it went. Hint: it didn’t.

            But I guess the OWS protesters should just stand back in their “free speech zone” and not bother anyone. Right?

          • Jennifer Starr

            I don’t understand why holding signs isn’t enough. Why do you have the right to bother anyone?

          • PetrovaFossil

            I’m not aware that Occupy protests specifically occurred at a BofA branch inside a supermarket, at which both bank customers and supermarket customers without any bank business were stalked and harassed, with attempts to impede access.

            This example, as you well know, is an apt comparison to the stalking and harassing actions of forced-birth activists, upon any and all patients accessing medical care at medical facilities.

            Are you suggesting that Occupy should be legally permitted to stalk, harass, and attempt to impede access to ordinary citizens seeking to make legitimate transactions upon the fruit of their personal labor? This does not seem to me to be a libertarian viewpoint.

          • expect_resistance

            Oh please, anti-choice harassers are afforded much more leniency by the police than OWS activists were. OWS encampments were brutally eliminated by the police state.

          • Shan

            “But I guess the OWS protesters should just stand back in their “free speech zone” and not bother anyone. Right?”

            If the police had EVER responded as quickly and aggressively to clinic complaints about anti-choice protesters as they did to Wall Street’s complaints about OWS protesters, there wouldn’t be any need for clinic buffer zones.

          • VonRecklingHause

            I agree.

          • Shan

            Does it occur to you that the cops have a reason for that?

          • VonRecklingHause

            Because they had more important things to deal with than abortion protesters and/or people getting their feelings hurt.

            And because OWS was fighting against people with money and people with money, unfortunately, often make the rules.

          • Shan

            No, people with money getting their “feelings hurt” are a higher priority for the police. That’s why they’ll never let OWS do that for decades.

          • VonRecklingHause

            I wasn’t arguing with you.

            Stop being so defensive.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “or people getting their feelings hurt” and

            I wasn’t arguing with you. Stop being so defensive”

            Classic gas lighting! .

          • Shan

            “I wasn’t arguing with you.

            Stop being so defensive.”

            I wasn’t being defensive, I just said you were wrong.

            Are you SURE you don’t have a penis?

          • cjvg

            So when was the last time we heard about anti-choice protesters being pepper sprayed and beaten by police? I know , never!!!!!!!!

            So when was the last time we heard about women seeking health care being harassed, intimidated and “counseled” against their will? Every week, until it became such a common occurrence that the news quit covering it and it only shows as a little bleep in the local papers!

          • cjvg

            Apples and oranges again, dishonest and inane argument that has been addressed ad nauseam,

          • Unicorn Farm

            Because, idiot, it’s easier to investigate and adjudicate whether someone violated a specifically delineated buffer zone than whether someone harassed or assaulted another individual.

          • cjvg

            Dishonest and inane argument that has been addressed ad nauseam, troll!

          • VonRecklingHause

            But like you said, the cops won’t do anything.

            So why do you think the people will keep their distance?

          • Mirable

            UnicornFarm already explained that to you multiple times.

            Cheers!

          • VonRecklingHause

            No, she didn’t.

            She states that these protesters were violating the current laws against harassment and the police aren’t doing anything about it.

            So when the protesters ignore this new law and the cops don’t do anything about it, nothing will have changed other than that we have made the 1st amendment weaker.

            But she thinks the police will somehow magically care because the is a imaginary line the people aren’t supposed to cross.

            Not to mention the implementation is clearly unconstitutional because the law targets a specific group of people. But Unicorn doesn’t understand that – with her fancy “top 20″ JD and all.

          • Unicorn Farm

            I explained to you that it is harder to investigate and adjudicate “harassment” and “assault” than “violating the buffer.”

            It is EASIER for cops to enforce the buffer law than laws against harassment and assault. Hands down. No contest. It is much easier for a protester to argue that her behavior didn’t rise to the level of harassment than to argue that she didn’t cross a buffer line. Look dude, if you’re that stupid that you can’t see the practical realities, I can’t help you.

            ‘Not to mention the implementation is clearly unconstitutional because the law targets a specific group of people.”

            How so? Spell it out, if I’m so clearly missing something obvious. Walk me through the applicable constitutional law, and apply it to this law. Show me that this law is prima facie unconstitutional.

            “with her fancy “top 20″ JD and all.”

            No one is stopping you from pursing an education if you would like one.

          • L-dan

            This. Said it better than I did, typing at the same time. :)

          • VonRecklingHause

            “It is EASIER for cops to enforce the buffer law than laws against harassment and assault.”

            Link please. I mean, other than your opinion and all. After all, opinions, like mine, aren’t evidence as you’ve alluded to above. So surely you’ll provide some solid peer-reviewed study showing us that buffer zone laws are more easily enforced than standard harassment laws. Go ahead. We can wait.

            And I’m not a dude.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “Link please.”

            Wait, I thought that we can’t trust anything we hear on the internet????

            It’s common fucking sense, but I’m not going to do additional research to prove this when you literally haven’t bothered to reply to the substance of any of my posts, except to attack my credentials.

            I defer to (I believe it was) Jennifer Star’s post explaining how the 1994 FACE act significantly cut down on harassment, assault, and general malaise outside of clinics.

            I don’t care what gender you are.

          • Mirable

            She’s right and you’re wrong.

          • L-dan

            Not so much the caring as that it’s immensely easier to prove and document “look that person crossed that line/got too close” vs. “that person shouted actionable threats in my face (and now says they didn’t), physically blocked my way, etc. Those usually end up as ‘he said/she said’ by the time the police arrive.

            Meanwhile, a simple snap of a phone camera provides proof of violating a boundary line.

          • cjvg

            Learn to read.

            Or at least have the decency to admit that you will never read the umpteen explanations unicorn farm gave you. Explanations that are exceptionally detailed and addressed every single legal and enforcement “concern” you had.

            Explanations that would force you to admit that you are in the wrong, if you were not that pathologically incapable of being honest.

            You have regurgitated the same few arguments over and over and over despite having been spoon-fed everything needed to address your “concerns” multiple times as simplistic as we can make it with easily to check examples and links for you to follow!

            You are not even a good troll, no interesting questions, no in-depth understanding, no real concerns just the same bla bla bla regurgitated.

            The supreme court has acknowledged multiple times that there is a limit to the right to free speech!

          • cjvg

            Again, dishonest and inane argument that has been addressed ad nauseam, troll!

          • Unicorn Farm

            He/she/it is clearly hopeless. Not even a good troll, so I need to quit bothering. I would hope at least that anyone lurking could benefit from the arguments we’ve all labored in vain to provide.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Because I’m obviously on my way to a f*ing doctor’s appointment that I can’t be late for and don’t have time to stand around-next to the person harassing me- and wait for the cops to get there.

            Use your f*ing common sense.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Then walk inside if you’re late. Use your common sense.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Well then I can’t call the cops, then, can I?

            Hence, my rights aren’t vindicated, where as they would have been if there was a buffer law.

            F’ing moron.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Cell phones work indoors because, like, technology and stuff.

            Did they have cell phones when you went to law school?

        • L-dan

          Um no. Free speech zones that are blocks away are nothing like setting buffers well within earshot and sight that simply offer some respite from harassment.

          I’d have no problem with similar buffer zones for striking workers if there were a trend toward them harassing people in the same way. As it stands, currently, strikes of that sort tend to be damn polite and frequently arrested anyway. Meanwhile, anti-choice protestors continue their abuse with impunity unless one is stupid enough to assault someone while police are actually standing right there to see it.

          How, precisely, is a requirement that one exercises their free speech 30 or 50 feet away infringing upon that speech? What could they do up close, that they can’t do from that distance, that they legally have a right to do?

        • Unicorn Farm

          “So basically this law creates a free speech zone. Just like under Bush.

          I hope your (sic) happy. This is a bad precedent.”

          No, it really doesn’t. It’s what’s called a “time, place, and manner restriction” that’s modeled off a law that has been held by the Supreme Court to be constitutional.

          As L-Dan said, free speech zones are totally different, and they are more restrictive than basic TPM restrictions.

        • expect_resistance

          No, “Buffer zones” are not the same as “free speech zones.” First off “Free speech zone” is an Orwellian term used to stifle and terrorize dissent. The “Free speech zone” is removed from the activity/event that is being protested. Even if it’s a permitted march and in a “Free speech zone” the cops move in with mace, tear-gas, and flash grenades to stifle any free speech. No, the First Amendment Rights of the anti-choicer harassers are not being infringed on.

          Anti-choice clinic protests are an ongoing form of sexism, misogyny, and harassment of women.

        • cjvg

          Dishonest and inane argument that has been addressed ad nauseam,

        • expect_resistance

          Like I said, it’s not the same.

    • Mirable

      That’s cuz pro-choicers are all Stalinists underneath the pleasant exterior. Now that you know, you can leave us alone, as we lay waste to the kulaks.

    • lady_black

      I have no problem with free speech zones. Most of the country is a free speech zone. What you CAN’T do, is park yourself in front of a business and harass employees and attempt to talk people out of going inside. You try that in front of any other business, and you’ll be dispersed PDQ. It’s not all about you. You want to protest abortion? Assemble in a park, with a permit and protest all day long, where people can avoid you.

      • VonRecklingHause

        “I have no problem with free speech zones”

        OK. Sure, the next time the teachers union wants to protest at the state capital on State St or the people want to protest the Texas abortion laws in support of Wendy Davis…they can do so in a sectioned off area far from the building.

        Be careful what you wish for.

        • PetrovaFossil

          Are you genuinely proposing that a citizens’ protest at a state legislative building is equivalent to a swarm of meddlesome self-appointed scolds that are stalking and harassing patients at a medical facility, attempting to impede their access? I see such a comparison as a clear example of false equivalency.

          The stalking and harassing modus operandi of the forced-birth meddlers stalking and harassing patients would be more equivalent, in the poor examples you propose, to:

          1. Teachers’ union protesters, stalking and harassing parents who bring their children to school bus stops, attempting to impede the children’s access;

          2. Reproductive justice protesters, stalking and harassing maternity patients and their families at Catholic hospitals, attempting to impede the patients’ access.

          Were either of the above two proposed “protest” methods deployed in any city in this nation, it is a surety that law enforcement would quickly, and rightly, intervene to protect the rights to access, and the privacy, of the targeted persons.

          I believe that you are aware that your examples are in no way equivalent to the stalking and harassment, with intent to impede and interrupt access, engaged in by forced-birth activists.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Your idea of “meddlesome” is that they don’t agree with you. If baring dissenting free speech is what you’re looking for, then go for it. However, some of us think the 1st amendment is important – regardless of what the opinion it is protecting.

            All of the things you mentioned (stalking, harassing, impeding) are already illegal under the FACE Act of 1994. Why don’t you know this?

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, what’s meddlesome is that they think their right to protest gives them access to me, and the right to approach and talk to me.

          • VonRecklingHause

            You’re right. We should outlaw all protesters of all kinds because they might approach someone and talk to them.

            Superbly thought out Jennifer. I don’t foresee any problem with that whatsoever.

          • Mirable

            Personally, I am hoping for a 1984 style scenario. A girl can dream, can’t she?

          • Jennifer Starr

            No,that’s not what I said at all. I don’t think the right to protest outside a clinic includes a right to approach and talk to patients. Understand, moose brain? Why are you so unable to grasp this extraordinarily simple premise?

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            It is trolling. If it debates the facts or even acknowleges them, it loses in its wee mind.

          • L-dan

            Way to argue against a point she didn’t actually make.

            Yeah, I can’t imagine why we would think you’re a concern troll when you hit all the marks.

          • VonRecklingHause

            So what’s the point L-Dan?

            That we should treat anti-choice protesters differently than other protesters? Because that sounds like a great idea too – even though it’s unconstitutional. And will probably be the reason for this laws demise.

            In case you didn’t know, a similar case to this, Hill v Colorado,made it’s way to the SCOTUS in 2000. The dissenting opinion stated “This law is not content neutral as it is obviously only being applied to abortion clinics and anti-abortion messages.” Since then, four of the six justices in the majority have retired, while
            the three dissenters remain on the court. Two of the four newer
            justices are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who
            both have voted to restrict abortion rights.

            This case is doomed for failure. All because some people thought we needed a new unconstitutional law instead of enforcing the previous law.

          • Shan

            “This law is not content neutral as it is obviously only being applied to abortion clinics and anti-abortion messages.”

            Hill v Colorado “makes it unlawful for any person within 100 feet of a health care facility’s entrance to “knowingly approach” within 8 feet of another person, without that person’s consent, in order to pass “a leaflet or handbill to, display a sign to, or engage in oral protest, education, or counseling with [that] person….”

            How is that not content neutral? It applies to health care facilities in general, not just to abortion clinics.

          • VonRecklingHause

            If you read the dissenting opinion in the case, you’d see that three justices thought the law wasn’t content neutral. And now we have Alito and Roberts to deal with. Not good. Not good at all.

            Personally, I thought the FACE Act would be enough if it were actually enforced. So why don’t we work on that before chipping away at the first amendment?

          • Shan

            We’ve had 20 years to get something useful out of the FACE Act. But it’s not working. When you live where I do at “ground zero” of the “war against abortion” you see it all the time.

            When South Wind Women’s Center opened up at Dr. Tiller’s former premises, the anti-abortion crowd was crazy enough to try to stop it by – get this – trying to get the City Council to re-zone the area as residential and then say South Wind should be shut down because the “community disruption” and graphic posters THEY USE are not “appropriate” for a residential area where schoolchildren might see them.

            “According to the Wichita Eagle, abortion opponents are citing several reasons that the clinic shouldn’t be allowed to operate in the community: several gun incidents that occurred when Tiller practiced there, the lack of communication between the clinic’s security staff and the anti-abortion activists to “defuse violence” before it occurs, the level of “antagonism” between the the clinic’s escorts and the anti-choice protesters, and the fact that it may be “inappropriate” for school children to see graphic signs and protests affiliated with the clinic.

            “The anti-choice protesters’ claim that the clinic is the cause of
            the disruption is ludicrous,” Diane Wahto, who sometimes volunteers at the clinic, told ThinkProgress. “They have been the ones who, in the past, have yelled, often through megaphones, who sing loudly and preach. They get in the way of those trying to drive into the clinics. At times, parents told their small children to lie in the driveway in front of incoming cars.”

            They know what they’re doing, they know the effect it has on everyone, especially the women using the clinic, never mind the threats against Julie Burkhart, Mila Means (see Angel Dillard) and the physicians and escorts there. And Kansans for Life, Operation Rescue, Word of Life Church and the Kansas Coalition for Life and people like them still have the gall to complain that THEY are the ones who are victim…of 1st Amendment violations. And people like YOU back them up.

            Nice job, self-proclaimed pro-choice advocate.

          • Jennifer Starr

            “They get in the way of those trying to drive into the clinics. At times, parents told their small children to lie in the driveway in front of incoming cars.”

            I’m not surprised they would endanger their children in that way. I remember reading an article in the ’80s about how they would get their children to crawl under the police barricades and stand in front of the door. To them the kids are just pawns for their protests.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Yes, I will defend the first amendment rights of people – even those with whom I vehemently disagree.

            I’m sorry you don’t take the First Amendment as seriously as I do. But that’s your right.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So you think it’s within their rights to impede the driveway and get their kids to lay down in the driveway in front of cars? Really? And you do remember what happened in Wichita to Dr. Tiller, don’t you?

          • VonRecklingHause

            1. Impeding movement is illegal under the FACE Act. Not to mention placing a minor in harms way…

            2. Murder is illegal under federal law.

            Neither of those things are protected first amendment rights, so no, why would I think that’s within their rights?

            Like it or not, talking to someone, however, is protected free speech – even under the FACE Act.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Quite frankly, I don’t think that people who indulge in the behaviors mentioned above are sound enough to approach and speak to a hamster, let alone a patient seeking medical care.

          • lady_black

            Not if they don’t want to talk to you, it’s not.

          • lady_black

            I would give them five fucking seconds to move their child. Or I would do it myself.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah me too.

          • Shan

            FACE Act. Not working. Address that.

          • cjvg

            Amazing how you that the right to free speech so seriously but do not give a damn about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I guess those rights are dispensable as long as the right to harass, intimidate and threaten women is upheld

            Your priorities are just wonderful, you are such a credit to society and civilization (yes that was sarcasm)

            The supreme court has already confirmed multiple times that there is a limit to the right to free speech, especially if the limitation is in the benefit of the whole of society!

            Other business have a right to unimpeded access, women have a right to the health care they chose etc. definitely a bigger benefit to society then the unlimited opportunity to harass women is!

          • VonRecklingHause

            You may not know this, but “harass, intimidate and threaten” are not protected under the first amendment.

            So, your assertion that I’m somehow defending that is wrong. The FACE Act of 1994 correctly addresses those points. This new buffer law does not address those points, but rather groups all protesters (law-abiding protesters and non-law-abiding protesters) into one group that has been regulated into a free speech zone. For no real reason (that doesn’t exist under current law) than to stifle free speech.

          • cjvg

            So where in the new buffer law says it that they are not allowed to speak their message?!
            As for that long beaten to death horse that you are trotting out again about the FACE act, if a law does not adequately address the abuses it is supposed to prevent, often improvements or new laws are enacted to achieve that goal. This is not some new thing!
            So where in the constitution does it state that free speech means you have to be able to come within 2 feet or closer of your intended target.
            Ad long as the intended target can still hear /see your speech , your right to free speech is intact.
            The supreme court has repeatedly confirmed that other more pressing issues can override the right to free speech. Are you seriously arguing that the safety and right to life and liberty of women, clinic staff and doctors are NOT a more pressing concern than the right to stand really close when you are speaking?!
            If that is your stance then you have no redeeming qualities, and I will not waste my time with a sub human!

          • cjvg

            Besides you are wrong again there already is precedent for this as I have explained to you previously.

            Repeat post for your benefit.

            Roth v. United States (1957)
            Roth v. United States is the landmark case where the Supreme Court rules that that ‘obscene’ material has no protection under the First Amendment.
            It thus creating the one exception to free speech protections that does not involve demonstrable threats to the lives and property of others (it’s an exception involving nothing more than material which disturbs, offends, or upsets viewers. it’s entirely a matter of the (subjective) standards of whomever is offended)

            The fact is that women who seek reproductive health care, and clinic staff and the doctors who provide reproductive health care have a much stronger case and often legitimately fear for their safety, privacy and or life and that completely validates this buffer zone!

          • VonRecklingHause

            Your post offends and upsets me. You should remove it because Roth v US states that you have no right to offend me with your writing.

          • lady_black

            They were wrong. It absolutely IS content neutral. NOBODY can engage in this behavior. It doesn’t apply only to anti-choice people.

          • L-dan

            First, really? You ask me what the point of the previous comment was, and then promptly launch into yet another spiel that doesn’t address it? I suppose it’s about par for the course for you to shift gears when you don’t have an answer to the question at hand. Again…not convincing me you aren’t a concern troll.

            The original point is that you somehow think that the claiming people do not have the right to approach and harass other people equals ‘we should outlaw all protestors’. That really doesn’t follow, nor do you make any sort of case for how it does.

            The unconstitutional part in the utterly not proving your point quote was allowing clinic workers and escorts to talk to patients within that zone when protesters were not, not that having a buffer zone itself was unconstitutional. Essentially preferencing one message over the other was the issue. I’d argue that, given that these are people going to the clinic of their own free will, they are essentially the ones approaching the clinic workers. But whatever.

            Nor do I see why the current anti-abortion makeup of the court should have any bearing on the subject.

            Beyond that, how is a buffer zone around a clinic any different from not allowing Westboro Baptist to demonstrate right at the gravesite when they’re out picketing? How is it different from the general requirements that picketers not harass and intimidate (which tends to get them arrested in other venues)?

            Frankly, how is it different in intent than restraining orders? The point of creating restraining orders closely parallels the creation history of buffer zones: abusive or threatening situations where illegal activity happens but is often difficult to prove and ends up tying up law enforcement without helping the victims much. Setting the requirement of “you may only come so close” offers a way to set boundaries that are easier to enforce.

            And finally, when we have a government that is still allowed to tell protestors they have to protest several blocks away from an event. I’m going to find it very suspect when there’s a louder outcry about how horrible clinic buffer zones are–which do not actually restrict free speech at all.

          • cjvg

            So you admit it is all about the abortion factor, since that is the only thing that you specifically focus on as the deciding issue.
            Nothing about free speech etc , no it is all about the abortion.

            You just flat out admitted that the only reason it would not be affirmed again is because the justices are ant-choice

            Pro-choice right, you have made it very obvious that the only choice you are for, is for people like you to dictate what women are allowed!

          • Unicorn Farm

            “Since then, four of the six justices in the majority have retired, while
            the three dissenters remain on the court”

            So your argument now is that because the makeup of the Court has changed, the law IS unconstitutional. Cute.

          • VonRecklingHause

            I personally believe that the law is unconstitutional. But it hardly matters what I believe.

            The court is more likely to agree with me — the current members being who they are.

            Not that hard to understand…even for someone who couldn’t get into a top 10 law school. And, yes, that was ad hominem.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And what law school did you go to? Did you even get into a university?

          • lady_black

            Content neutral means exactly that. You may not enter a buffer zone to give ANY kind of message. That’s the only way it’s fair. Like the one around polling places. No electioneering. I haven’t seen pro-choice activists trying to do this, though. You keep trying to make this about abortion. It’s not. Those people don’t know why women are going into a reproductive health clinic. It’s none of their business. They can’t go there and protest birth control, or women seeing a doctor. Busybodies stay back behind the barrier. If someone wants to talk to you, they can approach YOU.

          • Shan

            “That we should treat anti-choice protesters differently than other protesters?”

            If they behaved like other protesters, nobody would have to be talking about buffer zones. Read this about South Wind Women’s Center.

            www msmagazine com/summer2013/standinguptoterror.asp

            “South Wind supporters know there are legal and public safety ramifications when key community leaders fail to speak out against extremists. For example, when the clinic first opened, the Wichita city attorney forbade Wichita’s Police Department from attending a briefing convened by the U.S. attorney for Kansas to coordinate local, state and federal law enforcement response to extremist threats. When asked about this, a pro-choice city council member declined to comment on the record.

            “We tried early on to have a relationship with the city, but they say they have to remain neutral,” says Erin Thompson, an attorney representing South Wind who works alongside her father, Lee—Tiller’s longtime attorney. “But when it comes to issues of preventing violence and the public safety, there is no neutrality to be had.” The city attorney did not respond to Ms.’ requests for an interview.

            While Burkhart says she has a great relationship with the beat cops in the clinic’s neighborhood, she also says that the city attorney’s failure to cooperate is distressing. She’s not confident that law enforcement or government at any level will go after the anti-abortion extremists to prevent potential violence.”

          • Jennifer Starr

            If they were there to just peacefully protest, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. But they’re not. Most of them are there for one purpose–to intimidate and obstruct.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Then utilize the existing law to arrest them,

          • Mirable

            Dylan. Absolutely brilliant Jenn. Lovin it.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Thank you :)

          • cjvg

            Dishonest and inane argument that has been addressed ad nauseam, troll!

          • PetrovaFossil

            Allow me to quote the wisdom of one VonRecklingHause:

            “The freedom of speech is between individuals and the gov’t. Not two private citizens.”

            And the meddlesome forced-birth advocates who stalk and harass patients, and attempt to impede their access to medical facilities;

            – and the patients attempting to access said facilities without uninvited and unprovoked stalking, harassing, and attempts to impede access;

            - are private citizens.

          • VonRecklingHause

            And the law would be enforced by the GOVERNMENT, not private citizens.

            Get it? Probably not. Let’s explain:

            The freedom of speech is most certainly between the gov’t and the individual and not citizen-citizen. For example, a private website or newspaper can publish what material they see fit and restrict others. An individual could would not be able to claim that it was a violation of the 1st amendment if a thing happened.

            However, if the government restricts an individual from free speech with laws and actions (like in this case) it could be argued to violate 1st amendment protections.

          • PetrovaFossil

            So, if intrusive, harassing protests by a private citizen upon another private citizen as “freedom of speech” are not valid – as you previously asserted – then you are arguing that legal intervention to restrict those private citizens who attempt to violate the principle behind said assertion, entitles said violators to then legitimately claim “freedom of speech”, in an “free speech” scenario that has already been determined to be invalid?

            Your attempt to walk back your statement of “The freedom of speech is between individuals and the gov’t. Not two private citizens” is as convoluted as the Roman Catholic Church’s apologia on the topics of female equality and autonomy.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Please get someone else to explain to you who can and cannot restrict free speech.

            I tried. I couldn’t get through and I apologize.

          • PetrovaFossil

            But it is your logic, and your explanations, that I used as my object example. You now do not agree with yourself?

            More to the point, decades of experience with politically active libertarians has taught me that they cannot tolerate any disagreement with their opinions – and that the reliable response is to disparage the intellect of those who disagree, the operative principle here being “if you could only understand it, you’d agree with me”.

          • VonRecklingHause

            No. It’s rather your confusion and your continued misunderstanding of gov’t vs private in terms of the First Amendment.

            Yes, this case involves two private entities – the patient and the protester. It also involves the gov’t actor. The fact that you fail to understand this kind of makes me question if you’re just trolling.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So why does the ‘government actor’ suddenly give people the right to approach patients uninvited?

          • PetrovaFossil

            Your argument on First Amendment protections is what is confused.

            You first asserted that First Amendment rights do not apply between private citizen and private citizen.

            You then asserted that should law enforcement act to protect a private citizen who is being subjected to stalking, harassing and impediment by another private citizen, then such violation is then transformed into legitimate First Amendment rights for a private citizen to engage in stalking, harassing and impediment upon another private citizen.

            Your continued aspersions upon the intellect of those who disagree with your opinions simply illustrates the innate immaturity and selfishness that underlies much of “libertarian” thought. You are again engaging in the “if you could only understand it, you’d agree with me” principle here.

          • VonRecklingHause

            A private citizen cannot be charged with a violation of first amendment rights when it comes to that person (or private entity) restricting the free speech of another individual.

            Civics 101.

          • lady_black

            Libertarians are even dumber than Republicans. I always said this.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            The truth. You might enjoy this cartoon:
            http://leftycartoons.com/the-24-types-of-libertarian/

          • Shan

            There’s a “gov’t actor” involved in city ordinances prohibiting private citizens from distributing handbills to or knocking on the door of another private citizen where there’s a “No Soliciting” sign up. Is that a 1st Amendment issue as well?

          • L-dan

            That’s a good point and better highlights the issue here. Individuals have the right to refuse your message, even it *you* think you’re being polite about presenting it.

            The government does not have the right to entirely silence a message, or to preference one message over another. But they are allowed to protect that individual right to refuse someone’s message.

            A buffer zone ensures that those entering clinics can still hear and see the protestor’s messages. They are welcome to approach them to hear more.

            I mean…I can’t imagine why they think people are unlikely to approach and hear their loving counseling when they’re shouting “baby murderer!” But they still don’t have a right to require that kind of access.

          • cjvg

            Only if it has to do with preventing the “rights” of anti-choicers to intimidate and harass women, ’cause hey abortion!

          • cjvg

            All enforcement of right and rules involves a government factor, are you now arguing that rules, regulations, citizen responsibilities etc exist in some kind of ungoverned vacuum?!

            Seriously, and you have the nerve to accuse others of being illogical?

          • L-dan

            Free speech still does not mean you may say whatever you like, when and wherever you like. A buffer zone does not, in any way, infringe upon free speech. You have yet to demonstrate that it does.

            The protesters can say whatever they want, wave their signs. They’re still within sight and hearing of their target audience.

            Removing their right to get up in the face of said audience is infringing on their desire to intimidate, not their actual ability to communicate their message.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            They have bullhorns.

          • Shan

            But city ordinances everywhere say they can’t use them at 3am.

            FREE SPEECH INFRINGEMENT!!!

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Shan, is that you? LOL.

          • Shan

            It’s crappy weather out and I’m trapped inside, bored out of my mind. My options are to vacuum the stairs, fold laundry, finish watching the 2nd Thor movie I rented (and fell asleep TWICE trying to watch) or troll the internet. Which would you rather do?

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            No contest. Troll.

          • Shan

            *pushes up sleeves*

            Okay, I’m in!

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            If we hang here and troll, the whole world will eventually pass by.
            “Let’s go.” “We can’t.” “Why not?” “We’re waiting for Godot.”

          • Shan

            I don’t do it very often! Gimme just a few minutes of schadenfreude…

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            You are a stronger man than I am, Gunga Din. I have spend entire days enjoying troll thumping.

          • Shan

            Maybe not stronger, just…tired-er. I don’t have enough energy to troll-thump, for the most part.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I am old and I get tired too. I also get mania. And when I have mania, there is no tired. There is exhaustion while speeding. Trolling keeps me out the corner bar.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Any special reason for the tired? Not that it is any of my business. The grayness makes me tired now. And I am fricking older than dirt so I tend to nap a lot.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Schadenfreude – it is good for you. And it is so delicious.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’ve been watching Charlie’s Angels–season 3–and doing laundry as well. Today is a high of 65 and tomorrow is supposed to be freezing rain/sleet followed by four inches of snow–go figure.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Rain here and warmish. Going down to 19 below tonight with 6-10 inches here tonight and tomorrow.
            I want Spring.

          • L-dan

            I don’t know….drooling over Tom Hiddleston sounds more pleasant at least.

          • Mirable
          • Shan

            I am so sad. I don’t know who those Toms are. Plus, not really interested in drooling.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’ve been having an Ian McShane thing lately :)

          • Mirable

            That’s cus u r a c* cks* cker.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Before that it was Robson Green :P I think he would be perfect to play Repairman Jack in a movie, though at this point he’s probably too old…and I’m rambling.

          • Mirable

            Never heard of him. He is alright. I had the biggest crush on Robert Vaughn when I was a teen. I had bad taste. David McCallum was far better looking.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes, they will :) Though my first attraction to him started with Lovejoy:)

          • Mirable

            I will have to check out Lovejoy.

            It’s amazing, however, how Hollywood can turn ‘merely average’ into ‘sex symbol’

            Such as this:

            http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oXU5pwXiUVU/TT8f24k146I/AAAAAAAAAbY/KZe7c856xE0/s1600/18891226_w434_h_q80.jpg

            to this:

            http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Hugh-Laurie-hugh-laurie-731109_1024_768.jpg

            I admit to being rather surprised, a few years ago, when I heard people referring to HL as a sexy guy! Just goes to show how under the right context, someone can become ‘sexy’. I really think that a great role can help with that – along with, obviously, the best makeup and lighting that money can buy.

          • Shan

            IIRC, that’s spelled COKKSUCKKA!

          • fiona64

            I have a ridiculous fondness for Deadwood …

          • expect_resistance

            I love Deadwood. :)

          • L-dan

            Shan beat me too it. I was going to say that I’m pretty sure there are some restrictions on bullhorn usage.

            Like, probably not being allowed to use on in someone’s face.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            You probably cannot take it away and pound forced birther protesters over the head with their own bullhorn. Too bad.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Fine, then a buffer zone keeping the Wendy Davis supporters in Texas out of the capital bulding should be equally ok with you. And a buffer zone for the union supporters against Scott Walker that keeps them from intimidating the state representatives.

            Oh wait. Did you want those protesters to be allowed to do that? You did?

            Supporting free speech only when it agrees with your side is a sign of a person who is intellectually bankrupt.

          • L-dan

            As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t have a problem with those buffer zones, and they already exist. Are you telling me that Wendy Davis supporters *should* be allowed to get right up next to legislators and shout at them? Because I’m not in agreement at all there. Remaining withing view and hearing of the entrances, is a sufficient buffer zone.

            As I’ve also said elsewhere protesting within the capital itself in a disruptive fashion is going to result in people being thrown out or arrested. It’s a place of work, and not just for the legislators in most cases. Again using Wendy Davis’s fillibuster as an example, people shouting to disrupt activity and run down the clock were absolutely engaging in the sort of civil disobedience that is going to get them thrown out. I don’t have a problem with either the civil disobedience or that fact that they were going to get thrown out…and knew they were. It was a last ditch, nonviolent, stalling tactic.

            Do I have an issue with them barring silent protest in the galley while allowing other silent observers? Yes. But that’s already a buffer zone since they’re separated from the action on the floor.

          • Shan

            Also? The state house is not a private business. Von is still and again with the apples and elephants. Talk about intellectually bankrupt.

          • cjvg

            “Supporting free speech only when it agrees with your side is a sign of a person who is intellectually bankrupt.”
            Now that is funny coming from you!

          • Unicorn Farm

            “Fine, then a buffer zone keeping the Wendy Davis supporters….”

            1) that would not be content-neutral, as this law is
            2) there is no compelling government interest at play in that scenario.

            Thanks, please try again.

            “Supporting free speech only when it agrees with your side is a sign of a person who is intellectually bankrupt.”

            Repeat refusal to address points made to you coupled with ad hom attacks on credentials in lieu of argument is the sign of a person who is intellectually bankrupt.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Well, you’ve just outlined the two reasons why this law is being challenged in court.

            I guess we’ll have to wait and see what the outcome is.
            See you in court counselor.

          • Unicorn Farm

            ‘Well, you’ve just outlined the two reasons why this law is being challenged in court”

            Yeah, no shit I have, because those factors are part of the legal analysis for whether a TPM restriction is constitutional. If you want to strike down a speech ban, you literally have to address these factors. For heaven’s sake, you don’t know ANYTHING about this, do you? Why don’t you tell me what about this law a) is not content-neutral and why b) there is a no compelling government interest here.

            The fact that the law is being challenged in court says nothing about whether the argument is valid, much less successful.

            “See you in court counselor.”

            Dun dun DUN!!!!!

          • VonRecklingHause

            “because those factors are part of the legal analysis for whether a TPM restriction is constitutional…you don’t know ANYTHING about this”

            Funny, I never wrote that those things weren’t part of a TPM determination.

            Why don’t you tell me how a law that only applies to rather specific group of people is content-neutral? By the way, you’re going to have to defend the motives of the lawmakers who wrote this law when you defend that. Good luck.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Their right to speak does not mean that it has to come within my hearing range. I have the right to go to the doctor without being approached by loonies.

          • Unicorn Farm

            I only mentioned content neutrality and compelling government interest to show you how your pitiful analogies weren’t analogous. You tried a little “gotcha” moment and it failed.

            The onus is on YOU to show how this law is unconstitutional. You are the one advancing the argument that it so obviously will fail. If you’re so good and con law, and I’m so bad at it that it’s clear to you that i don’t have a law degree, then go ahead and show me how this fails the TPM analysis. Go on now. You’ve had a 600 comment thread to show us anything of value, and you haven’t.

          • cjvg

            Homicide, theft, fraud etc. all crimes that are most often taking place between two private individuals but for which the legal and criminal repercussions are enforced by the government!

            Logic, reason, honest debate all foreign concepts to you, aren’t they!

            But hey you are right, vigilante justice is where its at. Women being harassed should just enforce the punishment for that themselves, eventually there will be no more problem with these “protesters” since they are all shot with your blessings!

          • VonRecklingHause

            A private citizen cannot be charged with violating somebody else’s “freedom of speech” under the first amendment.

            You understand this simple concept, correct?

          • cjvg

            So why do you then object to buffer zones ?

          • lady_black

            I don’t particularly f*cking care if meddlesome protesters “disagree” with my reproductive rights. I never asked them what they think, don’t care what they think, and don’t want to HEAR what they think. You’re mighty presumptuous if you think anyone but me even has a say.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Great, then ignore them. And if they violate the FACE Act, then call the cops.

          • Jennifer Starr

            They can say what they want to say to her from a distance and then she can ignore them. Say 160 feet? Nothing entitles them to approach.

          • cjvg

            Just ignore this troll. He has had extensive (legal) explanations and refuses to read any of them.
            Just a boring dimwitted echo chamber

          • cjvg

            They are inserting them self into the private medical decisions made by people they have no social or economical ties to whatsoever!

            Since when are peoples private and legal decisions up for a public vote of approval from the community?
            Shall we now start subjecting you to the same, you will not be allowed to decide what level of education you can choose, who you will marry, how many children you are allowed to have without us approving these matters!

            These protesters are absolutelky allowed to disagree with me and any one else as much and as often as they want. They arte NOT allowed to attempt to prevent others from making choices they do not agree with.

            Meddling is not protected free speech, this meddling is meant to illegally appropriate the privately made choices other people have every legal right to decide for themselves!

            Right to privacy is a real and legal concept, your “right” to try to meddle in my private affairs is not a legal right!.. Just can it with your dishonest and inane “comparisons” that can not pass a cursory glance.

            For once bring one legal honest argument to this debate!

          • Unicorn Farm

            “Your idea of “meddlesome” is that they don’t agree with you.”

            My idea of meddlesome is approaching me to within a distance where they can reach out and touch me, with the express purpose of commenting on and influencing my medical choices.

            “All of the things you mentioned (stalking, harassing, impeding) are
            already illegal under the FACE Act of 1994. Why don’t you know this?”

            WHY have you STILL refused to respond to my point that a simple buffer zone is easier to enforce than anti-harassment laws AND prevents harassment before it occurs?

          • VonRecklingHause

            I already respnded to you about your claim that you think “buffer zone is easier to enforce than anti-harassment laws.”

            Show me the proof. Show me the peer-reviewed journal that studied this that led you to this conclusion. Besides that, all you have is speculation and conjecture.

          • Mirable

            Show us your Ivy League education.

          • Unicorn Farm

            You didn’t respond to the substance of my post. You asked for a “link.” That’s not a response.

            First of all, people usually don’t conduct peer reviewed studies on how easier laws are to enforce. That’s just … not done. I used to be in science and now I am in law. I am familiar with the peer review process, before you start that shit.

            I told you I wasn’t going to look for one because a) you’re not worth my time b) one may not exist and c) common sense and logic makes it obvious that its easier to enforce a buffer zone. I took you through all the steps a woman would need to take to enforce a harassment/ assault claim, versus the steps needed to enforce a buffer zone violation (as L-Dan articulately pointed out, just snapping a picture with a smart phone is sufficient to show a violation of a statute). Anyone with two functioning neurons can see, peer reviewed study or not, how the buffer zone is easier to enforce. You just won’t admit it.

            I am also basing my argument off of years in the legal field, my law degree, my ability to read a statute, the federal and state rules of evidence, civil procedure, and criminal procedure, and my understanding of what has to happen happen to actually prosecute a civil or criminal offense as someone who literally used to help issue rulings on violations of either.

            You’ve offered literally nothing to support any of your positions.

          • VonRecklingHause

            “people usually don’t conduct peer reviewed studies on how easier laws are to enforce”

            People with with letters after their name who study criminology and political science do. Go find the study that supports your claim.

            Otherwise, you have nothing but your opinion. You made the claim…now back it smart guy.

          • Unicorn Farm

            I gave you a million other sources for this knowledge, which you ignored. As well as basic common sense. You have offered NOTHING to refute this. If you really think that enforcing a harassment law -which requires a complaining witness, taking witness statements, investigations, testimony, and court proceedings to show that the actions rose to the level of harassment under the statute- is JUST AS EASY as proving that someone crossed a literal line on the pavement- then there is no hope for you.

            If you really think that it is not easier for the police to simply keep people behind a line- rather to intervene in an escalating situation to prevent assaults before they occur- then there is no hope for you.

            Begging for a “link” is a sign of someone who has never actually done anything or made any choices in the real world and who sits around arguing on the internet.

            And besides, you were the one who made the original claim that this law wasn’t necessary because harassment laws exist. I countered your claim with an assertion based on logic and professional experience. Where’s your peer reviewed study to support YOUR claim? Where is YOUR peer reviewed study that anti-harassment laws and their enforcement are good enough to protect women?

          • VonRecklingHause

            You made the claim and now you cannot defend it with any scholarly evidence. That’s not going to fly in court counselor. “But your Honor, it’s common sense. Duh!!”

          • Unicorn Farm

            “Scholarly evidence.” Aww, did you learn a new term? Really, asshole? There is other evidence out there other than “peer reviewed” studies. I defended my claim in my first post, in numerous subsequent posts, and IN THE ABOVE POST, and you have no response. And you never defended your original claim with anything at all, logic or otherwise, and yet I’m supposed to pull links for you? If the best response you have to anything I have written is “link please,” that’s pretty pathetic.

            “That’s not going to fly in court counselor.”

            Have you ever
            argued a case in court? I have, and I’ve won cases. Have you ever
            written an order that was signed by a judge and has the force and effect
            of law? I have. Common sense is actually a pretty common way judges
            make decisions.

            I’m out. You’re a waste of time, which we all knew, of course, but hopefully our gentle readers will benefit from seeing proper arguments advanced.

          • VonRecklingHause

            You’re not a judge. You’re an alleged lawyer.

            “But your honor, I know I don’t have evidence, but it’s my opinion that my client is innocent. Trust me your honor. I almost was good enough to go to an Ivy League law school. Almost.”

          • Unicorn Farm

            Hahahahahaha, wow, you’re flailing.

            And you apparently also live in a world where the only admissible evidence is peer-reviewed studies. Bizarre.

            I normally don’t engage in credential wagging because I find it tacky, but since the state of my law degree is clearly causing you great distress, allow me to clarify that I was accepted to Ivy League/Top 10 law schools, I simply decided to attend the one I attended because it offered me the most scholarship money.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Was it Princeton Law School?

          • fiona64

            Your desperation is showing, sweetie.

        • L-dan

          How does a buffer zone that allows protest within earshot equate to a free speech zone set well beyond that distance?

          • VonRecklingHause

            Tell that to me when they ban protester from going inside the state capital to protest Scott Walker.

            Then, maybe, just maybe, you’ll figure it out what it means to restrict free speech.

          • Shan

            They already did that.

          • VonRecklingHause

            And are you happy with that? Or do you think those evil protesters should stand at a distance so they don’t offend anyone?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Frankly I don’t understand why anyone needs to get up in someone’s personal space in order to make their point.

          • Shan

            You’re doing the apples and elephants thing again. You claimed that this ordinance would cause protesters to be banned from going inside the state capital. I said: THEY ALREADY DID THAT. This buffer zone law just isn’t the slippery slope you seem to be so excited about.

          • L-dan

            Don’t most capitol buildings ban disruptive protest actually within the building, where work is supposed to be happening? My understanding is that the folks doing that sort of protest are engaging in a form of civil disobedience and fully expect to be escorted out or arrested.

            I do have a beef with considering quietly observing with wearing a T-shirt with a message to be ‘disruptive’. But that’s a whole different situation.

            Do I think there’s a problem with requiring protesters at a capitol building to stay a reasonable distance from the door to avoid blocking traffic? No. Do I think it’s a bad thing when protesters engaging in civil disobedience do so anyway? No. When they are arrested for doing so? No. When those arresting them do so with undue force or harassment? Yes.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Don’t most capitol buildings ban disruptive protest actually within the building, where work is supposed to be happening? My understanding is that the folks doing that sort of protest are engaging in a form of civil disobedience and fully expect to be escorted out or arrested.

            That’s what I thought as well, yes.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Tell me when Scott Walker’s security team permits protestors to come within 8 feet of him.

            Maybe, just maybe, you’ll figure out what this law is really about.

        • lady_black

          There’s a difference here that you aren’t taking into account. Legislators are public servants, accountable to the voters. I’m not accountable to ANYONE for my healthcare decisions.

          • VonRecklingHause

            That’s a good point. But this law makes no distinction between public servants vs private. And, the law is not content-neutral as laws should be and why it will probably be overturned in court until it is re-written to apply to everyone (or no one).

          • Jennifer Starr

            That’s what they want though. A right to approach patients. A right they shouldn’t have.

          • lady_black

            What are you TALKING about???

    • Jennifer Starr

      Good god, it’s like talking to a smegging wall.

      • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

        Well said.

        It is not hear to learn or share. It is not even here for the sake of argument, or it would argue points made intelligently. It is here to troll.

        It is whacking off to us, Dear Ladies and Gentlemen. I really object to being this imbecile’s whackoff post even symbolically.

      • cjvg

        Walls are useful and have function, this one not so much

  • VonRecklingHause

    When Scott Walker uses this ordinance as justification in barring protestors from the state capital next time, some of you are going to probably want to reconsider your support for it.

    • Shan

      He doesn’t need it. Hill v Colorado was upheld by the SCOTUS back in 1999 and this legislation is basically the same.

      • VonRecklingHause

        The issue is that this will go to court. A 1st amendment lawsuit has ALREADY be filed against the city.

        And todays SCOTUS is not going to support this. Since Hill v CO, four of the six justices in the majority have retired, while the three dissenters remain on the court. Two of the four newer justices are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who both have voted to restrict abortion rights.

        • Shan

          Why would SCOTUS hear the same case again on the same grounds? Besides, the suit has to get past the District Court first. And so far, it hasn’t. The temporary restraining order was denied Friday by the District Court because the Court deemed it likely to fail because it’s too much like, you guessed it, Hill v Colorado.

        • Unicorn Farm

          “The issue is that this will go to court. A 1st amendment lawsuit has ALREADY be filed against the city”

          So?

          “And todays SCOTUS is not going to support this. Since Hill v CO, four of
          the six justices in the majority have retired, while the three
          dissenters remain on the court. ”

          So your argument has now evolved from “it’s unconstitutional” to “the makeup of the court has changed to one which is mostly anti-abortion.”

          Good argument, bro.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Yes, I personally believe it’s unconstitutional.

            And the court, for the reasons I stated above, will most likely agree with me.

            Deal with it bro.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “Yes, I personally believe it’s unconstitutional.”

            Based on what, your clearly minimal knowledge of con law? You have not even ONCE responded to my arguments with legal analysis.

            Reading comprehension is hard for you. I challenged your shifting-goal-post-argument that because the makeup of the court has changed since 1999, the law violates the first amendment.

            The fact that the court’s make up has changed does not mean that it will per se agree with you. And for fuck’s sake, just because the court holds something is constitutional doesn’t mean it is or always will be…..

          • lady_black

            The problem with your argument? This is NOT an abortion rights case. But nice try.

          • VonRecklingHause

            You’re 100% right. But to act like judges won’t know the background of the case and let that sway their judgement is rather naive, no?

          • lady_black

            No. It’s about the right of people to go to their doctor without crossing a gauntlet of ignoramuses who have NO IDEA why that person is going to the doctor from bothering them, following them, or invading their privacy. They still have free speech. 35 feet away. That’s close enough.

          • fiona64

            How is your free speech even remotely impacted if you have to shout at someone from 35 feet away instead of directly into their face? I’m curious.

        • lady_black

          Precedent.

        • lady_black

          The SCOTUS won’t touch this.

          • VonRecklingHause

            Thanks for opinion.

          • lady_black

            You know they can decline to hear the case, right?