Apologists for the measure claim rather anemically that the law is necessary to prevent “harassment,” and they promise that it strikes a reasonable “balance” between respect for free expression and the need to protect visitors from being hassled. McCullen and her lawyers disagree, holding that because the law’s applicability is contingent not on one’s behavior but on one’s speech per se, it is unconstitutional. They are right.Similarly: What's the deal with restraining orders? What if a guy just wants to talk to his ex -- yeah okay, sometimes things get out of hand, but still, what about the First Amendment?
If anything we need more transparency in the abortion business. A lot of these abortion mills are surrounded with suspicious-looking guards wearing "escort" vests -- they must have something to hide. If I could just follow those murdering sluts right up to the door, I'm sure I can get in there and find out. I'm good with the ladies!
UPDATE. In comments. Formerly_Nom_De_Plume notices one of the crazier quotes from Cooke's column:
...Massachusetts’s law discriminates against citizens not for the manner in which they express themselves but simply for holding a point of view, for praying, or for displaying a protest sign — for exercising one’s right to “walk and talk gently, lovingly, anywhere with anybody,” in the words of [clinic protester] Eleanor McCullen."Then," says Nom, "I'm sure Eleanor won't mind if I shadow her as she walks into and out of her church, gently and lovingly talking about how her religion is bullshit. All day every day." For guys like Cooke, the Constitution is just an opportunity for obnoxious thought experiments that never apply to themselves.
I walk past a clinic every day when I walk my dog. Everyday there are anti-abortion protesters outside (I don't know if/when they work at real jobs). Not only do they do the usual "harass anyone walking to the clinic" thing, but they also write down the license plate numbers of all the cars parked at the clinic. It creeps me out. Others have called the cops about this, but there's nothing illegal about writing down people's license plate numbers. I know in other places, with those numbers, they obtain home addresses where they then mail literature (and hopefully nothing more).
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing pro-life about any of them. Scratch one and you'll find a torture fetishist or something resembling Gahan Wilson's "Snitchy".
ReplyDeleteI'm beginning to think they live in wait for an opportunity for retributive violence, or just plain old monkey violence. Probably quite a few Eugene Pick's among them.
My wife and I encountered a few of them at the polls in 2008. We were "baby murderers" for supporting Obama.
There's no talking to people who are just shy of having to be fitted with a feedbag and restraints.
Of course if you're protesting Walmart or global "trade" agreements, you get the billy clubs to the head.
ReplyDelete~
P.S. I tried to post your link over at the NRO...
ReplyDelete"You do not have permission to post on this thread"
Further investigation shows that I can't post anymore on any Disqus thread over there. OMG MY CIVIL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, PEOPLE!!!
~
I managed a phone center for Gore in 2000 and 2-3 times a week my poor volunteers got calls from anti-abortion jerks who'd tell them they were going to Hell and worse. You drink the blood of babies! You eat their hearts! You're Satan's right hand in the world! One very sweet volunteer tried to explain to one of these guys that she too was against abortion -- but also against giving government the power to make medical decisions for her and for women whose circumstances she couldn't even guess, and more importantly she felt Gore was a better choice for the environment; she asked whether abortion was the only area where he disagreed with Gore. Her naivete and faith in reason were touching. His screaming about how evil she was continued throughout.
ReplyDeleteEventually she gave up and looked ready to cry -- he'd been so crazed, and some of his ranting amounted to vague threats. So I had to increase security and tell my volunteers, I know you want to represent the Vice President and the democratic process well, but if it's one of those assholes, just hang up. They don't have an opinion, they have a disorder.
Charles Cook might consider reality when forming his next opinion.
for exercising one’s right to “walk and talk gently, lovingly, anywhere with anybody,” in the words of Eleanor McCullen.
ReplyDeleteThen I'm sure Eleanor won't mind if I shadow her as she walks into and out of her church, gently and lovingly talking about how her religion is bullshit. All day every day.
The scare quotes around harassment make me want to puke.
ReplyDeleteYou just wanted to gently and lovingly tell them what assholes they are.
ReplyDeleteNormally when the words "gently," "lovingly," and "asshole" are in the same sentence, I get excited. But not when we're talking about the NRO.
ReplyDeleteI volunteered at an abortion clinic here in Atlanta for a while. Once every couple of weeks the protestors would show up. Funny enough, the clinic was at the top of a hill, and the protestors had to stand at the bottom of the hill, where most people going in didn't even have to get close to them. One of them tried shouting at me from a distance, "Hey. Hey. What are you doing here?" I just waved him off and went inside.
ReplyDeleteThat possibly explains why the protestors only bothered to show up every couple weeks. This clinic just never had the issues with protestors that most abortion clinics seem to.
Last time I visited a Planned Parenthood, on my way out, one of the "sweet, soft-spoken" grandmother types started pounding on my car window while yelling "open up" so she could give me a pro-life flyer. Another gentle little old lady stood in front of my car so I couldn't enter the street before receiving my sweet grandmotherly gift of hate. I had to drive around them both and try to avoid oncoming traffic I couldn't see because there was a another grandmother cluster in the way, yelling at me to stop my car, of course.
ReplyDelete"Harassment". Oh man I hate these people.
This combined with Roy's previous post would be hilarious if it weren't so irritating. Peacefully boycotting and protesting a corporation's political actions is tyranny. Aggressively protesting an individual's entirely legal medical decisions is AOK.
ReplyDeleteA lot of these abortion mills are surrounded with suspicious-looking guards wearing "escort" vests -- they must have something to hide.
ReplyDeleteYou savagely jest, but this challenge to the supposedly-settled notion of
"buffer zones" hinges in part on the fact that clinic workers are [GASP!] permitted to approach patients in the zone, while vicious screaming violent misogynist thugs seeking only to harass and obstruct patients are not. That's distinguishing between types of expression, you see, rather than being value-neutral. The other questionable aspect of the zone in question is how large it is (35 ft.). Naturally, given the specific nature of the objections in light of the precedent in Hill v. Colorado, the Supreme Court will no doubt hand down a narrowly-tailored ruling instructing Massachusetts to reduce the size of the zone and keep both sides out of---Hahahahahaha no. Fuckwit Kennedy and the other usual suspects will presumably produce a 5-4 opinion reversing Hill v. Colorado and declaring all buffer zones unconstitutional, because the First Amendment is sacred. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go hand out pro-union literature on a public sidewalk outside the local university hospital, at least for the couple of minutes before the university police inevitably show up.
Ah, you don't understand. It's consistent because corporations and fetuses are people unlike those demons who protest the just outcomes of the freemarket or think anything without a functioning brain can't really be a person. And yes, corporations have brains, why do you ask?
ReplyDeleteAlas, if Cook started considering reality when forming opinions, he'd be out of a job. Insert the relevant Upton Sinclair quote here.
ReplyDelete"Corporations are fetuses too, my friend. . ."
ReplyDeleteShorter Charles C.W. Cooke: "Women should be able to be harassed by busybody strangers when and where we say so, unless they're Republicans attending our national conventions."
ReplyDeleteBack when they were fond of locking themselves together with Kryptonite bike locks and swallowing the keys, one of my friends observed that the protestors could have been dissuaded by hooking a chain to the lot of them and towing them to a suitable vacant lot to reflect on their actions. If a few extremities got ground off in the process, well, that's martyrship for you.
ReplyDeleteyou know, if these abortion clinic visitors were allowed open carry an--
ReplyDeleteshit. wait. i'll get back to you guys.
Venture Capital is sperm, see, and a PowerPoint is an ovum. When they meet, they form a fetus, or "start-up." If the start-up is viable, why, in short order it is born as a corporation -- experiencing our world through its senses, hungry, and loving. It is our duty as Americans to love that corporation back so that it may grow up strong and always feel safe, and proud, and confident. We tell it when it's young, "This is America, where any corporation can grow up to do anything it wants!"
ReplyDeleteDoes "I drink your milkshake" count?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if it'd be illuminative for a few gaggles of liberals to picket gun shops and loudly hound their incoming customers for a few days? You know: Babies and small children get killed by these weapons! Jesus said to be non-violent and turn the other cheek! Beat thy swords into plowshares! Etc.
ReplyDelete---Naaaaah.
They don't have an opinion, they have a disorder.
ReplyDeleteStealing it.
Too bad that was before the mandatory vaginal ultrasounds for key swallowing.
ReplyDelete"Some day soon, my corporate son, you'll be old enough to declare bankruptcy."
ReplyDeleteYeah, what about all those "Free Speech Zones" people protesting political issues are crammed into, sometimes with cyclone fencing and barbed wire around them?
ReplyDeleteI hope the Buffer Zone proponents show the judge photos of all those "Free Speech Zones".
They don't have an opinion, they have a disorder.
ReplyDelete10,000 "Likes"
"Alas, if Cook started considering reality when forming opinions, he'd be out of a job."
ReplyDeleteAnd what about all the time he spent educating himself for the job? Watching movies, TV shows, perusing old John Birch tracts, is that all to count for nothing?
Apologists for the measure claim rather anemically that the law is necessary to prevent “harassment,”
ReplyDeleteAlso "assault" and perhaps even "murder." Ha ha LAME.
holding that because the law’s applicability is contingent not on one’s
ReplyDeletebehavior but on one’s speech per se, it is unconstitutional. They are
right.
I look forward to political campaigners being able to go in the voting booth with me and tell me who I should vote for. Just because they're not voting shouldn't limit their speech!
Just because someone else has an opinion doesn't mean that I am required to listen to it.
ReplyDeleteDamn! And here I thought a corporation was a creature of statute! Those Supremes sure is smart to figger that out.
ReplyDeleteMan, that jumpsuit gets more enticing everyday.
ReplyDeleteI posted this over at Lawyers, Guns and Money but I think it makes sense here too. That discussion was all too focused on logic chopping about the first amendment, to me, and not enough on the real lived experience of people who have to endure mob hectoring and the implicit threat of violence and exposure just to access a fucking health clinic. But here it is:
ReplyDeleteI think the reason for the buffer zone is embedded in what the old lady says in the article–that its not as satisfying to the protestors ego if they don’t feel they can get close enough to the patient or by doing their “sidewalk counseling” right up to the door , close enough to the door/abortion to be sure they haven’t “missed” a chance. The last few feet to the door become a kind of proxy for the “last chance” and the last chance becomes, itself, a challenge to the protestor. Its not real unless you give it your last oomph right up to the door. And the door, itself, of course is only a barrier because of private property laws otherwise they would be demanding the right to enter the doctor’s office and intervene there–which, in fact, they have done in red states. All of the red state interventions which include the mandated waiting periods and the forced vaginal ultrasounds or forcing the woman to watch the ultrasound and listen to a lecture are all ways of pushing the “free speech” and governmental concerns of the anti abortion crowd all the way into the body of the woman (literally).
I think this is one of the reasons I, personally, approve of the idea of buffer zones. Because I am sick and tired of hearing about the rights of (some) people, specifically largely white religious hysterics, to push their ideas of bodily morality right up into women’s physical bodies. In the case of the poor brain dead woman in Texas right up into her physical body, her womb, her lungs and her god damned afterlife. I think after all this reign of terror crap women are fucking entitled to an ENORMOUS zone of privacy around their bodies and their decisions. Frankly I think we should start agitating for positive laws allowing a pregnant woman seeking an abortion to fucking deck the first old lady who approaches her to talk about jesus. I’m tired of playing defense.
Ironically, they don't allow protesters in front of the Supreme Court:
ReplyDelete"There's even a buffer zone around the Supreme Court," Walz points out. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court does ban all demonstrations, vigils, picketing and speech-making on its 252-by-98-foot plaza, allowing demonstrations only on the adjacent public sidewalk.
http://www.npr.org/2013/12/20/255870199/supreme-court-considers-legality-of-abortion-clinic-buffer-zones
This reminds me of Nina Totenberg on "All Things Considered" and her description of McCullen: "I got to tell you, looks like everyone's idea of a grandmother." Nina probably also misses Randall Terry.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/2013/12/30/258420021/supreme-court-to-take-up-campaign-finance-abortion-protests-in-2014
I'm kinda surprised that the anti-abortion screamers haven't already hooked up with the open-carry leapers, given that the two groups have considerable overlap in sentiments. This numbnut Cooke seems to think that verbal and physical harassment are just fine because First Amendment, which he misunderstands just as thoroughly as the gun fetishists misunderstand the Second, so it sounds like a match made in radical reactionary heaven. I mean, why just shout vile shit at distraught women when you can really put the fear of gawd into them with an AR-15 and body armor?
ReplyDeleteNot that I'm suggesting this--just letting the mind wander to what the general state of affairs in this country has become in the last decade or so, and meandering down that path to a couple of years (or months) from now. It's getting so that bugfuck nuts is the new normal lately.
I listened to the NIna Totenberg story this morning, and damn! Scalia says it's not protest it's "counseling" the anti-abortion folks are providing, so it shouldn't be restricted.
ReplyDeleteI would almost buy the argument that protest has more of a compelling reason to not be restricted than "counseling." Don't individuals have the freedom to refuse to be "counseled?"
Nor do they have to right to get in my face to deliver it.
ReplyDeleteNot in Scalia's narrow little world.
ReplyDeleteExactly.
ReplyDeleteDoes Cook ever *form* opinions? He appears to have acquired them as part of the package deal, and now needs only to find arguments to support them.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to counsel him, then.
ReplyDeleteThe clinic protesters are a pure example of the people Fred Clark at Slacktivist calls "persecuted hegemons": people with the dual identities of moral majority and persecuted rebel. Even though they have the literal rest of the country for speaking and preaching and cornering people and foisting pamphlets, the protestors can't see that 35-foot-wide strip of neutral ground as a personal attack on them and their beliefs. You see this phenomenon play out with a lot of typical conservative panics: the anger at gun-free businesses, the terror of unisex bathrooms, the fear of colleges offering classes on sex and ethnic studies, the rage at any kind of accommodation for Muslims. Nothing short of 100% acquiescence is allowed in their minds.
ReplyDeleteNow forming, the Westboro Atheist Gathering.
ReplyDeleteI would hope that the utter hypocrisy of bearing instruments of death while loudly proclaiming the sanctity of life is apparent to even the dumbest and least media savvy pro-life demonstrator.
ReplyDeleteAnd when it reaches puberty, it goes public!
ReplyDeleteHow the hell can they do lawn work if you abrade them?
ReplyDeleteAsk George Tiller's ghost.
ReplyDeleteAh, hope. I remember that.
ReplyDeleteTo defend the fetus, we have to kill the mother!
ReplyDeleteThere's a clinic on the path between my house and work. Occasionally, I see the harrassers standing outside, and whenever I do, I make sure to shoot them the finger. Since I'm in a convertible,I'm pretty sure they can see me pretty well.
ReplyDeleteIt is unconscionable that the resentments, hypocrisies, and bigotries of these tail-enders wags our societal dog!
ReplyDeleteIt's disgusting how far to the right they've pushed the discourse, and how many good things have been sacrificed to that push.
But someday...yay...never comes.
ReplyDeleteUh, yeah. Ask John Salvi who shot up two Planned Parenthoods in Brookline, MA in 1996--I believe he killed two women. I doubt very much he knew their fertility status at the time. Talk about not being able to make omlettes without breaking eggs!
ReplyDeletePedal to the Metal would do the same, wouldn't it?
ReplyDeletePedal to the metal is just normal driving in Austin. It doesn't garner a second look.
ReplyDeletePlease, God, make it be on the Carnival Triumph.
ReplyDeleteSave some for me.
ReplyDeleteOh, sure, I meant run them down. Hell, I'm from Boston. Pedal to the metal is normal driving here and I'm talking on the sidewalks.
ReplyDeleteA much as I hate them, I would not advocate violence against them, even in a joking manner. I would rather give them the gentle loving counsel of my middle finger.
ReplyDeleteIs that the Shit Boat? I'm pretty sure whatever boat hosts the National Review Cruise ends up as the Shit Boat. Just one big ol' poopdeck.
ReplyDeleteWould pelting them with dildos be considered violence?
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid they might like that too much.
ReplyDelete"At 21 weeks, a corporation is already developed enough to pillage your retirement fund."
ReplyDeleteARM THE FETUSES!
ReplyDeleteAnd isn't the whole argument that the content of speech doesn't matter, so 'protest' and 'counseling' wouldn't receive different levels of protection? And what the hell kind of objective authority would tell the difference anyway? And I assume that in Scalia-land, liberal protesters talking about the evils of guns or pollution would receive equal protection, up to and including the right to stalk their opponents and yell threats of damnation at them?
ReplyDeleteScalia is such. A fucking. Turd. You expect most politicians to be sleazy lying assholes, but you think a fucking Supreme Court Justice would have more respect for the law than twisting it to serve what ever insane right-wing pet project he's secretly rooting for behind his facade of objectivity. Even if you didn't judge justices by the consequences of their decisions, Scalia would be the worst SCJ in history. He has no respect for the law, he's a right-wing kamikaze agent bent on warping it for the benefit of the right wing as much as possible before he finally drops dead. And when he gets to hell, he'll high-five Reagan on a lifetime of work well done.
I'm increasingly afraid that by the time Justice Fuckwit Kennedy is ready to retire, gunfire will be protected by the First Amendment as well as the Second.
ReplyDeleteInsecurity maybe, but a lot of these hardcore anti-abortion people are so deeply obsessed and deranged that I think it's more basic: they see life as a war between good and evil, and they're good, and they're out to destroy evil. By any means necessary, because why give quarter to evil?
ReplyDeleteActually, I don't think that sort of worldview by itself is the worst thing in the world (personally, you'd have to spend a while convincing me that ALEC, the Kochs, Murdoch, etc. aren't capital-e Evil), but it does make them im-fucking-possible to deal with in a democratic society. You will never, ever convince someone like McCullen that other people have different beliefs and values than she does, and that's OK. You might as well be talking to a brick wall. And when your Evil isn't people who actually do control the world, to the detriment of everyone else, and actually have wreaked untold destruction on the earth, humanity, and society, but women who are making a lifelong decision about their personal situation-which you know nothing about, fetus sign lady-and probably a lot of them are scared and sad enough without the freak show hurling insults at them-then, yeah, shut the fuck up. Go find someone else to torment.
Usually I don't even joke about violence but today, remembering the people who have been killed by the pro-life brigade, I'm in a joking mood.
ReplyDeleteYou can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, but you can quietly, lovingly ask your seatmates if they smell smoke, because gosh, it smells like something is burning.
ReplyDeleteAnd it feels no pain.
ReplyDeleteYes, this argument that its better because: counseling! is just bizarre. I suppose next we are going to have to allow sidewalk confessionals from priests? That is Scalia is going ot argue that they have the right to demand we confess our sins to them, in little mobile boxes?
ReplyDeleteWomen who have reviewed their options and made peace with abortion being the least bad one aren't keen on listening to zealots who scream at them free of context. Weird.
ReplyDeleteIt's because of stories like yours that Cooke's first sentence strikes... No, first, let's review that sentence for posterity's sake before we go on.
ReplyDeleteThis morning, in America’s frigid and fractious capital city, a soft-spoken 77-year-old grandmother named Eleanor McCullen stood up to the machine.
Yeah, rhetorically it's a lot easier for Cooke to assume that getting old makes a person saintly and wise, so of course that's what he does. The fact that many - not all, but many - senior citizens simply become more wedded to unsupportable prejudices is inconvenient, despite its usefulness in keeping his magazine afloat.
Then you can also factor in IOKIYAR and you're home free.
I totally get the anger, and I feel it too. I try not to give in to it. Today, I'm having a relatively good day with it.
ReplyDeleteScalia would be the worst SCJ in history.
ReplyDeleteFor now, sure. But remember, Alito is still a growing boy.
With Jonah the Fail on board, we're talkin' garbage barge being towed behind sewage ship levels of stink.
ReplyDeleteDepending on the outcome down in Florida, it may be okay to OPEN fire in a crowded theater if the guy behind you is too annoying.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to live on this planet anymore.
I wonder what would happen if a woman seeking an abortion were to shoot a clinic harasser and cite the Stand Your Ground law as her defense.
ReplyDeleteJust in the 1st 'graph:
ReplyDelete*Apologists* *claim* *anemically*, *harassmennt* is in scaries,same with *balance*. I wonder if he just slipped, or if *hassled* is in clear because he felt he'd reached the acceptable scaries-per-graph limit...
This kind of shit is awful hard to read.
This kind of shit is awful hard to read.
ReplyDeleteFor many reasons.
When two stockholders love each other very much...
ReplyDeleteThey don't have an opinion, they have a disorder.
ReplyDeleteEl Rushbo, early '9os: (I paraquote) "Liberalism isn't an ideology, it's a mental illness'.
OK, then, we're even. Except that we're right.
Bearing in mind that it's perfectly constitutional to yell "fire!" if there really is one, the antis could always bend (hoo boy...) that argument to fit their situation. And that would be OK, because then we could require them to prove it...
ReplyDeleteLike CP is fond of saying, Fat Tony's pretty much phoning it in these days.
ReplyDeleteToo bad the Pope can't fire all the catholic justices. Or... can he?
ReplyDeleteMaybe if they throw popcorn at her. Or skittles.
ReplyDeleteAnti choice people seem very ignorant, and then stuffed full of lies by their "leaders", who are looking for personal aggrandizement, political power and MONEY. But their followers are too stupid and deluded to grasp that. No wonder they can't even imagine the valid reasons women get abortions.
ReplyDeleteIf they're "counseling", haul 'em off for counseling without a license, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt would be 'illuminative' how many of those liberals would get shot within the first hour. Conservatives may not be too strong on logic, but they have at least figured out to always punch down at the vulnerable: they're less likely to fight back.
ReplyDeleteActually, that provokes a good question though: if the anti-choice protesters REALLY believed doctors and patients who abort fetuses are murderers and baby-killers, why would they harass and antagonize this godless pack of murderers?
Why aren't they scared that one of those immoral, murderous baby-killers might turn on them and kill them too? They even run out in front of the cars of these murderers, trusting that the baby-killers won't run them over. It's almost like they don't actually believe that the people at women's health clinics are conscience-free monsters, after all.
uggggh. not everyone's "idea of a grandmother" is WHITE. let alone a hateful frontwoman for health clinic terrorists.
ReplyDeleteIf you need a little hope today... some anti-choice people really are just misled and learn better: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html
ReplyDeleteI'm sure this Cookesucker made a similar fuss when the Cheney Administration introduced America to Protest Zones.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, anti abortion zealots have managed to hijack the debate with claims of fetal personhood, and that's the direction that a lot of their legal arguments are taking. Our side must be willing to stand up and say, often and loudly, "No, a blastocyst is NOT a person, a baby, or a child. Our side also got rocked back on its heels when we allowed the zealots to get away with branding late term abortions as "Partial Birth", and portraying them as if they were as easy to get as a toaster at Wal-Mart. And can we imagine the foaming outrage on the Right if this happened to the "gentle", "peaceful" wingnut "counellors" ?
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Uj1cV97XQ
Which is why I said earlier that the new normal is bugfuck nuts. It's as if we now tolerate the old B-movie western "I don't like yore looks, stranger." BLAM!
ReplyDeleteTo me, it's a bit like those old experiments on overcrowding, where X number of mice coexist fine in a confined space, but X+10 starts to cause havoc. Mice get anxiety, start biting each other, etc.
Except now, the number of X is 1, and X+1 is the breaking point.
Well, the dead guy did allegedly throw popcorn. Or someone threw popcorn. Anyway, it was like that worst-case-scenario that comes up with concealed carry--a darkened theater where everyone has guns and no one knows who's shooting at whom, except in this case it was popcorn and a gun.
ReplyDeleteNot sure where I was going with that, but it wasn't meant to undermine the new normal being bugfuck crazy or not wanting to live on this bugfuck crazy planet.
Well, I do think thats wrong. I think they can imagine the valid reasons women get abortions quite easily--many of them have had abortions themselves, for example. But yesterday's griefs and fears seem distant, to them,and they have new regrets and new illusions about how things might have been different. And they are not at all devoted to the idea of autonomy for other humans or that people have to be allowed to control their own lives as an absolute end in itself. So against the "valid reasons" for any given woman to choose termination of a pregnancy they can offer, as they see it, thousands of "valid reasons" that supersede those reasons. Especially because at base one of the most valid reasons for pro-choicers is the irreducible right of the person not to endure forced pregnancy, birth, and motherhood.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason, maybe because the law suit is taking place in my neck of the woods,I'm even angrier than usual. The reason these motherfuckers can even picket and use the guise of picketing to physically approach and interfere with women (and men) going into these clinics is that thirty years of bad laws, changes in zoning laws, and the pushing of abortion out of hospitals and into clinics in the first place has made it difficult for abortion clinics to hide in larger private entities--like malls for example--whose laws would exclude the panhandling and soliciting of the protestors. So women using these facilities don't even have the meager protection of laws that usually protect people trying to excercise consumer rights to purchase a service, say. There's no privately owned entrance to this clinic-people have to get there on a public sidewalk. Protestors have gone so far as to photograph the lisence plates of women trying to park at the clinic so they can write to them or approach them at home. This is so far beyond ordinary political speech its not even funny--the first amendment is being used as a cudgel to harass women at an incredibly vulnerable moment. If these were men seeking help with erectile dysfunction or cancer treatment there is no way IN HELL that this kind of interference either with the business or the men's personal lives would be tolerated. No.Way.In.Hell. But somehow because these are bible banging lunatics and their target is women the entire thing is naturalized and talked about in totally bloodless terms.
ReplyDeleteOr any of Eric Rudolph's victims. (Rudolph, you'll remember, was suspected of having covert support when he was a fugitive from justice, and his own brother cut off his own hand with a radial saw to protest the manhunt.)
ReplyDeleteMan, if we'd only known how easy it was to pop open those locks back then...
ReplyDelete"For guys like Cooke, the Constitution is just an opportunity for obnoxious thought experiments that never apply to themselves."
ReplyDeleteI remember during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, a lot of glibertarian fetishists used the opportunity of, you know, people drowning and starving and dying, to re-examine just how much help the government should *really* be giving the moocher class. Calvin Coolidge and Franklin Pierce (??? !!!) were noted as positive examples of what to do. And of course, none of these wingnut welfare think sewage tanks had to actually *deal* with the aftermath of their viewpoints...
Or maybe some off duty Hell's Angels...
ReplyDeleteOver here, too. That saying has so many applications. Can we order it in bulk.
ReplyDeleteI'm in. Only if I'm allowed to wear a colander on my head, though.
ReplyDeleteOr Barnett Slepian's.
ReplyDeleteWhere in the Constitution is the right to impose counseling on someone?
ReplyDeleteHarassment is already proscribed by law, you dim-witted buffoon. We're not talking about harassment; we're talking about speech.
ReplyDeleteThis hypothetical is not apt. A law that kept you from approaching her church, but only if you intend to tell her you think her religion is bullshit, would not be constitutional. If you harass her, she then would have recourse to attempt to get a restraining order.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you should read Cooke, he's penned a number of articles defending speech that he disagrees with.
ReplyDeleteSend in the dildocopters.
ReplyDeleteEasy, it's in the Book of Job.
ReplyDeleteYou are a moronic imbecile. If McCullen slapped around the abortion doctors at the clinic at which she protested, then sure, slap her with a restraining order.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise you are doing the typical libtarded "Oh look! A squirrel!", by comparing apples and oranges.
"they must have something to hide"
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of fact, the abortion business has a record of breaking the law by not reporting cases of underage statutory rape, and violating the right of parents to know their child is getting an abortion. There should be greater transparency.
Perhaps the reason you are so defensive of this issue is because the abortion business allows you to abuse minors? Not even big labor is siding with you on this issue, since it knows it will impact its right to conduct protests. You libtards need to synchronize talking points before shooting off your mouths.
Formerly_N_D_P
ReplyDeletePerfect. Your comparison is apt. Abortion as a religious sacrament for you. Wow. One hundred years from now there'll be an Oscar favorite callled " Twelve Years and Abortion Worker" and they will look on in horror that we disposed of babies like inconvenient property.
You are one sick fuck. Now hush.
ReplyDeleteYou think taking the abortion mills to task for covering up underage rape so they can make a few extra bucks is sick?
ReplyDeleteYou are a moral cretin. Idiots like you shouldn't be taken seriously, especially when you try to silence people who point out your sick predilections and moral blind spots.
Now go crawl back under your rock until you've evolved enough to distinguish right from wrong.
ReplyDeleteEVOLUTION IS AN ANTI-CHRISTIAN LIBERAL LIE, YOU HIPPIE MUSLIM COMMUNIST.
One hundred years from now there'll be an Oscar favorite callled " Twelve Years and Abortion Worker"
ReplyDeleteSo, a buddy picture?
Perhaps the reason you are so defensive of this issue is because the abortion business allows you to abuse minors?
ReplyDeleteGasp! He's onto us!
You libtards need to synchronize talking points before shooting off your mouths.
I'm not surprised you think that's the way it works.
I understand why you want the harassment of women going into abortion clinics to persist until someone gets hurt. Let's just agree to disagree.
ReplyDeleteMarge: Do I have to be dead before you’ll help me?
ReplyDeleteWiggum: Well, not dead — dying.
[Marge gets up to leave]
Wiggum: No, no, no, no. Don’t walk away. How about this: just show me the knife … in your back.
[Marge leaves]
Wiggum: Not too deep, but it should be able to stand by itself.
I always love Jesus freaks who have no idea what mandatory reporting laws are but have strong opinions anyway.
ReplyDeleteLet me let you in on a little secret, old boy: any healthcare worker who fails to report any abuse of a child is going to be investigated by state licensing bodies. Since Jesus freaks are a large enough lobby in every state, GYN clinics that offer abortion are most especially scrutinized. If underage rape were not being reported, you'd be able to cite instance of clinics being punished for it in the major media. You can't, of course, but please do run on. (By the way: abortion in most hospitals and clinics is a very low-margin surgery, and usually a money-loser. You could, as they say, look it up.)
For example?
ReplyDeleteYes, harassing speech.
ReplyDeleteI, for one, would rather NOT synchronize talking points.
ReplyDeleteI would give you credit for a very creative mixed metaphor if I thought it was intentional.
ReplyDeleteThink about it: if a "libtard" was actually successful in diverting attention by saying "Oh look! A squirrel!" then no one would hear his comparison of apples and oranges.
But the kind of harassment you describe goes on every day at abortion clinics. It's a concerted racketeering effort by lunatics who are just clever enough to realize that their victims won't file charges because it won't be worth the hassle, especially when they're in the middle of getting a traumatic medical procedure.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if your keen interest in free speech extends any further than the right to get in women's faces and call them murderers. I'm guessing not.
Listen KTM, no doubt you're one of those "producers" with plenty of disposable income. Can't you just pay some women to let you call them murderers and whores instead of playing your fetish out in front of clinics?
ReplyDeleteI think he's defended the Westboro guys, which is like table stakes for First Amendment advocacy. Other than that, he's totally orthodox: "Liberals are suppressing my dismembered-fetus photo" and "Code Pink? Never heard of them."
ReplyDeleteYeah, but dig his opener: "You are a moronic imbecile." Judging from his fellow trolls' contributions, polysyllabic insults are a key part of the strategy, but the others make the mistake of trying to sound smart. Rob goes totally the other way; the redundancy of "moronic imbecile" -- which has to be intentional -- shows some spark of wit. I predict this cowboy will go far if he doesn't get arrested for freaking out at an abortion clinic first.
ReplyDeleteAnd I guess that's what passes for reasonable, well-considered, thoughtful argument around these parts.
ReplyDeleteWell done, Eddie.
Oh, right. Stupid me.
ReplyDeleteYou could, as they say, look it up.
ReplyDeleteHa. Also ha. There are "people" to whom the acquisition of actual real-world knowledge is a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Thing. A 10-spot says ol' Rob is one such...
"moronic imbecile" -- which has to be intentional
ReplyDeleteOhhhh, I wouldin' be too sure 'bout that...:)
I was giving away balloons for Kerry at a fair. A little boy, maybe 6 or 7, looks at me and says, "Kerry kills little children."
ReplyDeleteTo indoctrinate kids that hard by the time they can read---
as reasonable or well considered as just tossing out the "dim-itted buffoon" part of your comment? What part of 'reasonable' includes an ad hominem attack?
ReplyDeleteOne person's speech is obviously another person's harrassment when that speech is in the wrong time, or place. Its absurd to pretend otherwise--especially since you acknowledge that approaching a woman heading into her church to pray and speaking to her negatively about her religious choice would be harassing and not merely "free speech."
ReplyDeleteRight--Roy rightly calls it a "concerted racketeering effort." But if the problem that Mitch Baker et al have with the process is that it sounds too directed and one on one so lets try that: would it be ok if I got a number of atheists--say twenty or thirty--to approach everyone who was walking past the local catholic church and insisted on giving them literature reminding them that all priests are child rapists, that the catholic church has stolen their money, etc... and also we approached cars and drivers, took down lisence plate numbers, and mailed letters exhorting them to convert to atheism or die miserable and alone etc..etc..etc..? Would that be ok? Why wouldn't it be?
ReplyDeleteOh, the "dim-witted buffoon" was entirely gratuitous, but you'll notice that I at least accompanied it with an argument, cricket.
ReplyDeleteQuite possibly so Aimai. Prosecute the offense under existing law, then.
ReplyDeleteJeez, you clowns; this isn't difficult stuff.
Then pursue remedies under existing law. Duh.
ReplyDeleteI know this may not have occured to you but existing laws might be flawed either in their conception or their application--that is some people might have their rights vindicated under strict application, or loose application. Others might have their rights violated under strict application, but vindicated under loose. The point of these buffer zones is that up until the bombing and shooting of actual doctors, nurses, and patients and the arming of america perhaps buffer zones weren't needed. Perhaps people used to be politer in their attempts to massively infringe the right to physical self determination of women--perhaps we didn't care as much. Perhaps the right to bodily autonomy has risen in our estimation, like the right to the vote. Things change. Telling people to stick only with old interpretations of 'existing law' is absurd. There was a new law--the buffer law--why not tell the old grabby grandma to be satisfied with "existing law?"
ReplyDeleteWhat a load of blather. Existing law is more than sufficient.
ReplyDeletePerhaps people used to be politer in their attempts to massively infringe the right to physical self determination of women--perhaps we didn't care as much.
Oh, we weren't polite. Never have been. Moreover, this "right" to infringe on the rights of the unborn is a relatively recent invention consisting of horrifically bad case law (have you read the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade?).
And whatever new-fangled law you wanna come up with simply cannot stomp all over well-established, time-worn, and fundamental rights such as speech.
So you admit that there can be "horrifically bad case law" when you don't like it (yes, I've read roe v. wade) but when someone else thinks the law is unjust its just "blather?" Got it. Your morality is as confused as your philosophy and your argument.
ReplyDeleteNot, admit, Aimai, rather, shout it.
ReplyDeleteBlather because your proposed law is also horrifically bad. It impinges upon a fundamental, foundational right, Aimai, something CLEARLY lost on you.
This has been done, occasionally, at porn stores and around the johns who frequent prostitutes, but somehow the free speech rights of people to approach johns and take down their lisence plate numbers are never, ever, vindicated. Because men going to prostitutes are not a powerless group, socially and politically.
ReplyDeleteIts not lost on me that something is lost in every legal battle over rights--but something important might be gained, as well. None of the rights guaranteed by the bill of rights are absolute. None of them. All are subject to interpretation, limitation, regulation, and reconsideration. Thats the beauty of it. So, fuck off and die you tight puckered little asshole of a faux civil rights absolutist dwarf.
ReplyDelete