barbara_headshot.jpeg

In Massachusetts, protesters must remain 35 feet from an abortion facility and are not allowed to obstruct anyone from entering. On Wednesday, a group of anti-abortion protesters challenged this law, and not to a game of badminton. The law is being challenged in the US Supreme Court, so if struck down, it will affect the safety of abortion clinics all over the country.

The protesters maintain that the law infringes upon our freedom of speech. And I’m all for speech to be totally free, like a box of old magazines in Southeast Portland. However, I don’t think freedom of speech includes anything that might hurt someone.

At my day job I talk to medical patients, and I’ve spoken with girls younger than me going through serious surgeries that are stigmatized. I hate that they’re bombarded with intimidation on their way to these procedures. Life is confusing and terrifying enough with Justin Bieber out there.

The exact wording of the First Amendment in the constitution is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I’m gonna hang my hair scrunchy on the word “peaceably” and say that abortion protesters less than 35 feet (only 6 and a half Barbaras) away from a clinic are not exactly breaking off a piece of that peace peaceably. Traumatizing a young woman is not what Ghandi would do. Can’t they exercise their freedom of speech just as easily without obstructing patients and professionals from entering the clinic? Maybe they need a new freedom of speech exercise video. And a one and a two: I’m allowed to have these opinions but so are you!

Hate speech is NOT protected under the First Amendment. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says “…hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” Mentally intimidating someone is hostility and discrimination. Obstructing patients or doctors from entering a medical clinic counts as violence. And while they don’t by definition constitute hate speech, the Venn diagram of anti abortion protesters and hate-speech mongers is not separated by a fully operational force field.

Our rights to safe medical procedures hang by a daisy stem. If you’re a young woman who has experienced any of this intimidation and aggression, I’m so sorry you had to go through that. If you’re a medical professional who works in this field, I’m grateful for you. Thanks for being strong and inspirational! Tune in next week to find out whether I ever figure out what a hashtag is.

14 replies on “Don’t Be a Dick, Supreme Court”

  1. >Traumatizing a young woman is not what Ghandi would do.

    But that is actually something that Gandhi (you spelled his name wrong, BTW) would do. There’s a large body of evidence that he’d force young girls to sleep naked in the same bed as him in order for the him to test the limits and abilities of his chastity vows.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertai…
    http://ofmi.org/gandhis-sexual-abuse-of-gr…
    http://creative.sulekha.com/the-mahatma-ga…

  3. When Wikipedia and not the US Constitution is being used to measure whether or not hate speech is protected, I start to question humanity. It doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law to prohibit someone from being a dick”, but yet, people are dicks. In regards to Pro-Lifers protesting around an abortion clinic, and wanting to eliminate the distance already established, it just seems to me that they really do want to block other peoples’ choices and that may “lead to imminent hate violence” (as the above commenter so eloquently put it per Wikipedia). Since none of us has a crystal ball, I say the protesters should just stay back the 35 feet, give us the right to misspell Gandhi if we choose, and maybe, not use our Lord and Savior’s name in vain. Amen!

  4. “Traumatizing a young woman is not what Ghandi would do.” Unless it’s sleeping naked with his grand-nieces. Because, you know, he totally did that.

    Also, hate speech *is* protected by the Constitution. See R.A.V. vs City of St. Paul.

  6. You can’t plagiarize the reporting of a fact, Graham. At most, I echoed your sentiments, which I’m sure you’re not used to, but the assertion that I plagiarized you suggests that I read your comments before I post my own. I don’t.

  10. Barbara, international law does not trump national law in the US, or really anywhere else that often. Take a look at the countries who signed and ratified the ICCPR, and tell me how well Article 17 is being enforced in places like Uganda and Russia for example.

    I can’t imagine any US court eliminating an American freedom in favor of an international law, especially one that isn’t enforced against more egregious offenders. Any politician who relegates American jurisprudence in favor of the international variety is sure to lose, and any judge who wants to put America’s Constitution second behind international statutes won’t make it past traffic court in his/her career.

  13. The distance requirement could be a valid “time, place, manner” restriction – it would keep the protesters far enough away from the entrance to prevent it from being blocked, but allow the protesters to make their views known.

    Be very careful with the “time, place, manner” restriction,because the city loves to use this to mean “we must pepper-spray all the liberal protesters”.

  14. Article with its heart (probably) in the right place. So many major fails: gendered slur in headline (thanks, because gendered slurs are so progressive) and identifying the ‘clinics’ as the entity whose safety is threatened. Nope. After that I quit reading. Christ.

Comments are closed.