Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHYPOCRISY ALERT: SCOTUS Keeps Its Own Buffer Zone While Telling Women THEY DON'T NEED ONE!
"....this ruling still amounts to another attack on womens reproductive rights. It is also this ruling is yet another incentive to vote in November. If Republicans take control of the Senate, the next Supreme Court Justice is all but certain to be someone who will share Scalia, Alito and Thomass views on womens reproductive rights and all other matters before the Court...."
It is impossible to overlook the fact that womens reproductive rights have been systematically eroded with personhood amendments, TRAP laws and rape insurance mandates. Its just as impossible to overlook the misogynistic tone of panels on reproductive rights comprised exclusively of old white men who claim that keeping government out of your business means increasing government control over a womans reproductive business. Striking down a Massachusetts law that established buffer zones around Abortion clinics, on first amendment grounds, the SCOTUS has dealt another blow to womens reproductive rights. The SCOTUS took issue with Massachusetts buffer zone law because itrestricts access to public way[s] and sidewalks, places that have traditionally been open for speech activities and the Court has accordingly labels traditional public fora. The Scotusblog summarized the impact of the ruling:
The upshot of todays ruling is that an abortion clinic buffer zone is presumptively unconstitutional. Instead, a state has to more narrowly target clinic obstructions. For example, the police can tell protesters to move aside to let a woman through to the clinic. But it cannot prohibit protesters from being on the sidewalks in the first instance.
http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_26_2014?Page=0
http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_26_2014?Page=0
In summarizing the background of buffer zones at reproductive health clinics, the SCOTUS pointed to the fact that this law was preceded by legislation that was modeled on Colorados floating buffer zone law. However, that law proved insufficient because anti-choice activists threw literature into cars, filmed and touched patients and blocked cars from accessing parking garages. That was when, Massachusetts passed the current law. The Court also pointed to the fact that the plaintiffs in this case are sidewalk counsellors who merely offer literature and only persist in their counselling if the woman looks receptive. That may very well be true, but it doesnt remove the fact that previous legislative solutions proved ineffective in protecting people who have business with abortion clinics from the physical obstacles and intimidation by more zealous anti-choice activists. It does not remove the fact that reproductive care clinics endured bombings, workers were shot, and women have been intimidated and threatened before buffer zones were established. It is particularly interesting when you consider that this Court has its own buffer zone, but doesnt believe women seeking reproductive care need one. The silver lining is a majority of the court rejected the plaintiffs claim that the law was not a content based. or viewpoint based because
"....it establishes buffer zones only at abortion clinics, as opposed to other kinds of facilities. First, the Act does not draw content-based distinctions on its face. Whether petitioners violate the Act depends not on what they say, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U. S. 1, 27, but on where they say it. Second, even if a facially neutral law disproportionately affects speech on certain topics, it remains content neutral so long as it is justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech..."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1168_6k47.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1168_6k47.pdf
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/26/scotus-unanimously-strikes-buffer-zones-women-keeping-buffer-zone.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 957 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
HYPOCRISY ALERT: SCOTUS Keeps Its Own Buffer Zone While Telling Women THEY DON'T NEED ONE! (Original Post)
Segami
Jun 2014
OP
Uncle Joe
(58,299 posts)1. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread, Segami.
elleng
(130,767 posts)2. NOT AT ALL ANALOGOUS.
valerief
(53,235 posts)6. SCOTUS says, "Fuck women." Yeah, it's the same thing. Women going into
healthcare clinics have gotten killed by those cartoon-brain lunatics. It's a loss to humanity when these women are hurt. What kind of loss to humanity would it be to lose Scalia or Roberts?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)3. The SCOTUS should be on TV
The only time I saw it on TV was when Boston Legal did a show about a lawyer arguing a case in front of the SCOTUS.
What is the SCOTUS hiding? Put it on TV, this is the 21st century, eh?
elleng
(130,767 posts)4. Its arguments are recorded,
and are on radio and TV via, C-SPAN, at the end of each week. The Court is hiding nothing.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)5. Not on TV
I want to see their faces, live. Those chickens are hiding from us. Expose them! They allow cameras on every corner, we need a dozen cameras exposing them.