{"id":13106,"date":"2014-06-28T00:24:59","date_gmt":"2014-06-28T07:24:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=13106"},"modified":"2014-06-28T00:24:59","modified_gmt":"2014-06-28T07:24:59","slug":"bye-bye-buffer-zone","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2014\/06\/28\/bye-bye-buffer-zone\/","title":{"rendered":"Bye Bye Buffer Zone"},"content":{"rendered":"

Yesterday the Supreme Court handed down a rather surprising decision, disallowing the eight foot buffer zone around the entrances to Massachusetts women\u2019s health centers that perform abortions.  I understand that it may well be Constitutionally correct, but from a practical point of view the decision could have tragic ramifications.  I do not understand why a much larger exclusion zone that protects the four Justices of SCOTUS and the five Injustices of SCROTUS (Republican Constitutional VD) is not also unconstitutional.  The plaintiff claimed that they just wanted to have \u201cquiet conversations\u201d with their neighbors and fellow citizens.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\"0628Abortion-Hate\"<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously struck down<\/a> a Massachusetts law that barred protests, counseling and other speech near abortion clinics.<\/p>\n

\u201cA painted line on the sidewalk is easy to enforce, but the prime objective of the First Amendment is not efficiency,\u201d Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a majority opinion that was joined by the court\u2019s four-member liberal wing.<\/p>\n

The law, enacted in 2007, created 35-foot buffer zones around entrances to abortion clinics. State officials said the law was a response to a history of harassment and violence at abortion clinics in Massachusetts, including a shooting rampage at two facilities<\/a> in 1994.<\/p>\n

The Massachusetts law was challenged on First Amendment grounds by opponents of abortion who said they sought to have quiet conversations<\/strong> with women entering clinics to tell them about alternatives. \u201cPetitioners are not protesters,\u201d Chief Justice Roberts wrote.<\/p>\n

The court was unanimous about the bottom line but divided on the reasoning, with Chief Justice Roberts writing a narrow opinion. The law blocked too much speech, he said, \u201csweeping in innocent individuals.\u201d\u2026 [emphasis added<\/em>]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Inserted from <NY Times<\/a>><\/p>\n

I can understand their point that it is not Constitutional to exclude people with no intent to violate the women\u2019s rights and innocent passers by, who may be transiting the zone for reasons that have nothing to do with the clinic.  Of course the problem, is that Republican Supply-side pseudo-Christians are fanatical believers in a right to life that begins at conception and ends at birth.  They do not believe that abortion providers and others who assist women to exercise their rights have the right to life.   We know this, because they have murdered several.  If you believe that the extent of their \u201cspeech\u201d will be those \u201cquiet conversations\u201d, see me about the wonderful bridge I am selling.  The one plus is that the decision leaves the door open to similar legislation that does not \u201cblock too much speech\u201d.<\/font><\/p>\n

The best coverage I have seen on this subject is from Rachel Maddow.  Sadly I cannot take credit for the added portrayal of Scalia at the beginning.<\/font><\/p>\n