The US supreme court's abortion buffer zone ruling protects a gauntlet of horror

[ClosedCaption]

Before a buffer zone was enacted at one clinic where she volunteered in New Jersey, Klabuish says it took six or seven escorts to protect a single patient and her companion from picketers yelling racist and sexist epithets in their faces.

The irony of this, of course, is that the 'buffer zone' actually protected those opposed to privacy rights for women, where these and similar 'protesters' are now subject to other state and local laws designed to protect the safety of those seeking services, having nothing to do with the First Amendment, as well as the 'protesters' now being subject to criminal assault and trespassing charges.

I thought the irony was that the some "buffer zones" are okay and some are not...

The justices don’t like Massachusetts’ buffer zones. But they’re fine with the one around the Supreme Court.

OF COURSE!!! Because women about to have an abortion should be able to take it on the chin from opposing voices but judges that decide on laws of the land dont have the stones to hear opposing voices because thats too much to bear

 

[The Rabbi]

The irony of this, of course, is that the 'buffer zone' actually protected those opposed to privacy rights for women, where these and similar 'protesters' are now subject to other state and local laws designed to protect the safety of those seeking services, having nothing to do with the First Amendment, as well as the 'protesters' now being subject to criminal assault and trespassing charges.

I thought the irony was that the some "buffer zones" are okay and some are not...

The justices don’t like Massachusetts’ buffer zones. But they’re fine with the one around the Supreme Court.

OF COURSE!!! Because women about to have an abortion should be able to take it on the chin from opposing voices but judges that decide on laws of the land dont have the stones to hear opposing voices because thats too much to bear

Um, judges adjudicate between two opposing sides which have had the opportunity to present their cases and then defend them against attack.
Seriously, do you not know this? I knew you were one stupid motherfucker but this post is uber-dumb, even for you.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I thought the irony was that the some "buffer zones" are okay and some are not...

The justices don’t like Massachusetts’ buffer zones. But they’re fine with the one around the Supreme Court.

OF COURSE!!! Because women about to have an abortion should be able to take it on the chin from opposing voices but judges that decide on laws of the land dont have the stones to hear opposing voices because thats too much to bear

Um, judges adjudicate between two opposing sides which have had the opportunity to present their cases and then defend them against attack.
Seriously, do you not know this? I knew you were one stupid motherfucker but this post is uber-dumb, even for you.

Judges also wear black robes. Seriously did you not know that?

"Thats different" is not a defense

 

[Seawytch]

The irony of this, of course, is that the 'buffer zone' actually protected those opposed to privacy rights for women, where these and similar 'protesters' are now subject to other state and local laws designed to protect the safety of those seeking services, having nothing to do with the First Amendment, as well as the 'protesters' now being subject to criminal assault and trespassing charges.

I thought the irony was that the some "buffer zones" are okay and some are not...

The justices don’t like Massachusetts’ buffer zones. But they’re fine with the one around the Supreme Court.

OF COURSE!!! Because women about to have an abortion should be able to take it on the chin from opposing voices but judges that decide on laws of the land dont have the stones to hear opposing voices because thats too much to bear

Except they aren't just "taking it on the chin", they're getting shot and bombed too.

 

[The Rabbi]

OF COURSE!!! Because women about to have an abortion should be able to take it on the chin from opposing voices but judges that decide on laws of the land dont have the stones to hear opposing voices because thats too much to bear

Um, judges adjudicate between two opposing sides which have had the opportunity to present their cases and then defend them against attack.
Seriously, do you not know this? I knew you were one stupid motherfucker but this post is uber-dumb, even for you.

Judges also wear black robes. Seriously did you not know that?

"Thats different" is not a defense

When caught saying something stupid, say somethig even more stupid. There's a strategy.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Um, judges adjudicate between two opposing sides which have had the opportunity to present their cases and then defend them against attack.
Seriously, do you not know this? I knew you were one stupid motherfucker but this post is uber-dumb, even for you.

Judges also wear black robes. Seriously did you not know that?

"Thats different" is not a defense

When caught saying something stupid, say somethig even more stupid. There's a strategy.

I'm trying to understand why you felt the need to type out the job description of judges like that makes a difference or someone said the opposite.

The reason is because you cannot address what I said so you go off on a tangent about judges job functions

 

[The Rabbi]

Judges also wear black robes. Seriously did you not know that?

"Thats different" is not a defense

When caught saying something stupid, say somethig even more stupid. There's a strategy.

I'm trying to understand why you felt the need to type out the job description of judges like that makes a difference or someone said the opposite.

The reason is because you cannot address what I said so you go off on a tangent about judges job functions

Too stupid to understand what you posted.

OK, you claimed that judges somehow insulated themselves from adverse opinions. I point out that the judge's actual job in fact is to listen to adverse opinions and then make a decision. You somehow seem not to get that.

 

[ClosedCaption]

When caught saying something stupid, say somethig even more stupid. There's a strategy.

I'm trying to understand why you felt the need to type out the job description of judges like that makes a difference or someone said the opposite.

The reason is because you cannot address what I said so you go off on a tangent about judges job functions

Too stupid to understand what you posted.

OK, you claimed that judges somehow insulated themselves from adverse opinions. I point out that the judge's actual job in fact is to listen to adverse opinions and then make a decision. You somehow seem not to get that.

And you seem not to get that they approve of buffer zones for themselves and not for other people. You cant explain why that hypocrisy is ok so you talk about something else

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm trying to understand why you felt the need to type out the job description of judges like that makes a difference or someone said the opposite.

The reason is because you cannot address what I said so you go off on a tangent about judges job functions

Too stupid to understand what you posted.

OK, you claimed that judges somehow insulated themselves from adverse opinions. I point out that the judge's actual job in fact is to listen to adverse opinions and then make a decision. You somehow seem not to get that.

And you seem not to get that they approve of buffer zones for themselves and not for other people. You cant explain why that hypocrisy is ok so you talk about something else

You dont seem to understand the situations are not similar in any way. That's because you're stupid. There is no hypocrisy.

 

[Plasmaball]

The great thing is protest buffer zones are perfectly legal.
The dnc and rnc both have buffer zones that are miles away from their conventions..

The court was wrong on this one...unless they decide to overturn those buffers as well.

Two completely different situations. But thank you, Capt Oblivious.

oh but they are not. freedom of speech an all.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Too stupid to understand what you posted.

OK, you claimed that judges somehow insulated themselves from adverse opinions. I point out that the judge's actual job in fact is to listen to adverse opinions and then make a decision. You somehow seem not to get that.

And you seem not to get that they approve of buffer zones for themselves and not for other people. You cant explain why that hypocrisy is ok so you talk about something else

You dont seem to understand the situations are not similar in any way. That's because you're stupid. There is no hypocrisy.

And I go back to what I said in the beginning, "Thats different" is not a defense stupid

 

[Plasmaball]

The US supreme court's abortion buffer zone ruling protects a gauntlet of horror | Jessica Valenti | Comment is free | theguardian.com

basically it they said it limits their right to the 1st amendment.

Katie Klabusich, a reproductive rights activist who has volunteered as an escort at six clinics across the country, tells me she is "terrified".

Before a buffer zone was enacted at one clinic where she volunteered in New Jersey, Klabuish says it took six or seven escorts to protect a single patient and her companion from picketers yelling racist and sexist epithets in their faces.

"You could still hear them yelling in the procedure room," she told me on Thursday after the decision in McCullen v Coakley.

Klabusich says the lack of a buffer zone was particularly difficult when women being would come to the clinic after a medical transport from the hospital - most with wanted pregnancies that had put their health or life in danger:

these people who stand out there and do this have more in common with terrorists than anything else.

The gauntlet of horror is the one the baby experiences as it is sliced and diced and then it's minced corpse is passed through the birth canal.

Neat! doesnt give you the right to harass those people.

 

[The Rabbi]

The great thing is protest buffer zones are perfectly legal.
The dnc and rnc both have buffer zones that are miles away from their conventions..

The court was wrong on this one...unless they decide to overturn those buffers as well.

Two completely different situations. But thank you, Capt Oblivious.

oh but they are not. freedom of speech an all.

Smart people recognize distinctions.
Then there's you.

 

[The Rabbi]

And you seem not to get that they approve of buffer zones for themselves and not for other people. You cant explain why that hypocrisy is ok so you talk about something else

You dont seem to understand the situations are not similar in any way. That's because you're stupid. There is no hypocrisy.

And I go back to what I said in the beginning, "Thats different" is not a defense stupid

Yeah, actually showing that two situations are different and therefore the same rule can't apply is the essence of argument.
You lose. Again.

SOrry but Im not wasting any more time on someone who can't figure out that a judge's job is to hear opposing sides. Or that a public sidewalk is not a courtroom. Just not doing it.

 

[Plasmaball]

Two completely different situations. But thank you, Capt Oblivious.

oh but they are not. freedom of speech an all.

Smart people recognize distinctions.
Then there's you.

ah more nothing from the retard of the board....

 

[Katzndogz]

I've seen these protests. Some older women praying, somebody handing out leaflets, an Hispanic couple with kids holding signs. No shouting, hatred, anger.

Don't let the leftist fanatics in the media lie to you.

I moved up in planned parenthood to being a counselor. I thought it was to help frightened girls deal with pregnancy and the possible solution of abortion. That's what I thought. My job was actually take these frightened girls and work them up into hysteria by browbeating them into having an abortion. I learned lines like:
If you have a baby your boyfriend will dump your belly for a prettier and smarter girl.

If you have an abortion you can go partying right away.

Your friends will leave you all alone.

You can throw out your nice clothes. You'll never fit your fat ass in them again.

I really couldn't do it. The manipulation and lies are some of the reasons I'm anti abortion today.

And after that you became a Bridge Saleswoman, because boy are you selling one now.

I used to be a big time liberal. I belonged to ACLU and NOW. I supported Planned Parenthood and volunteered for every liberal cause there was. Abortion rights, gay rights, black rights, I was out there in the street marching for all of them.

 

[Stephanie]

again, they loved it when judges overruled the voters in California in homosexual marriage

but let something go against what they think or believe it should be....we get wailing and dramatics like, a GAUNTLET OF HORRORS

too bad they don't care as much for what their own children will be going through a gauntlet of horror when they have that abortion

 

[ClosedCaption]

You dont seem to understand the situations are not similar in any way. That's because you're stupid. There is no hypocrisy.

And I go back to what I said in the beginning, "Thats different" is not a defense stupid

Yeah, actually showing that two situations are different and therefore the same rule can't apply is the essence of argument.
You lose. Again.

SOrry but Im not wasting any more time on someone who can't figure out that a judge's job is to hear opposing sides. Or that a public sidewalk is not a courtroom. Just not doing it.

Every two situations, people, circumstances, twins, objects etc always have differences. No two things are ever the same smart guy...so yelling "thats different" and pretending to not be able to see the commonalities is a game played by idiots like yourself who have no foundation.

Thats why you are forced to type things like what a Judges job is and intellectual gems such as "a public sidewalk is not a courtroom"

 

[Plasmaball]

And I go back to what I said in the beginning, "Thats different" is not a defense stupid

Yeah, actually showing that two situations are different and therefore the same rule can't apply is the essence of argument.
You lose. Again.

SOrry but Im not wasting any more time on someone who can't figure out that a judge's job is to hear opposing sides. Or that a public sidewalk is not a courtroom. Just not doing it.

Every two situations, people, circumstances, twins, objects etc always have differences. No two things are ever the same smart guy...so yelling "thats different" and pretending to not be able to see the commonalities is a game played by idiots like yourself who have no foundation.

Thats why you are forced to type things like what a Judges job is and intellectual gems such as "a public sidewalk is not a courtroom"

The US supreme court's abortion buffer zone ruling protects a gauntlet of horror : TwoXChromosomes

Read this. It would seem that the law was to broad, and in reality Mass can create laws limiting these protesters. They just have to be narrower.

So My op is kind of wrong in a sense, because she didnt bother to understand what actually happened.

Which means the Clinics can still create "buffers" for these waste of life protesters who need to go get a job or something. It just has to be narrower in scope.

 

[Plasmaball]

Roberts said that as an alternative approach, Massachusetts could consider an ordinance such as one adopted in New York City that "makes it a crime 'to follow and harass another person within 15 feet of the premises of a reproductive health care facility.' "
The state could also adopt a law that makes it illegal to attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with anyone because they're either coming from or heading toward a health clinic, he said.

i would love to watch these people be arrested for these things. LOVE IT.