Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Prompt No. 4 Abortion v. First Amendment and Compelling state interest
Often, the Supreme Court is in the tough position of having to decide between two sets of rights. What if one person's right to something somehow conflicts with another person equally protected right? Who wins? Whose right is "more important?" So in these cases, the court has to consider "compelling state interest." In other words, they have to decide which right has the most compelling (overwhelming) state (the people) interest (what is the best thing for our society) or in other words, which right most great benefits the people overall. So they recently ruled on an abortion (which is a right protected by the 9th and 14th amendments) and protesting (1st amendment) right.
Do you agree with the Supreme Court of the United States' (heneforth referred to as SCOTUS) decision that requiring a buffer around abortion clinics to protect patients from Anti-Abortion supporters is a violation of those protesters first amendment rights?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
65 comments:
I absolutely agree with the SCOTUS decision. These people protesting outside of the clinic is not stopping anyone from getting an abortion, if that were the case it would no longer be a protected protest. They are merely voicing their opinions at the heart of their problem. It is no different than the Westboro Baptist Church members going to funerals of gays and soldiers. It may be distasteful, but it is protected.
Although I don't agree with most protesting, it is legal to stand and protest in a public place. I agree with Ed that simply protesting in front of an abortion clinic is not stopping the abortion process. It may be uncomfortable for the people attending the clinic but the citizens do have the right of freedom of speech and protest. If however the protesting does become violent or proceeds to stop physically stop the abortion it will no longer be legal. Over all I agree with the SCOTUS to protect the rights of the protestors who are only voicing their opinion.
-Katherine Neal
Creating a buffer does not violate the first amendment right of the protesters. It would only be protected if the protesters didn't cause harm. There are reports of some of the protesters getting physical and there are instances of the protesters succeeding in their goal which can be harmful. There are cases in which women need an abortion in order to survive because carrying a child and/or giving birth to one can kill them. If the protesters succeed in getting those women, who may actually want a child, to forgo the procedure, the women would die. Getting an abortion is emotional enough and having people yelling at you about what a terrible person you are can have a damaging psychological effect if you go through with it. That buffer is for the safety of the women because those protestors can have very harmful effects on the women.
Protesting isn't illegal, the First Amendment provides for “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” which simply means you can protest as long as you aren't causing harm. So even if it really bothers the people having an abortion,they can't do nothing either, because people are just voicing there opinions.
Although I can't seem to find the articles on the page, I agree with the SCOTUS decision for the buffer from pro-life protesters. Like what everyone else said, protesting is not unconstitutional. However, if it gets physical, there needs to be precautions for the women making a tough choice. As a woman, I think that we should be able to get abortions, especially in the case of rape. I would also say that if a woman is not sure if she is physically(especially if it's life threatening), emotionally, or financially ready to have a child, abortion should still be an option. Continuing with what the fabulous Gabbie Fall said, abortion is an emotionally exhausting decision, and having harassment makes it hurt more. I would like to point out that the grief that the pro-lifers give these women is so stressful, it could cause a miscarriage.
I agree with the SCOTUS decision. LIke Ed said, the protesters aren’t going to stop anyone from getting an abortion. If any protest is going to be protected, anyone should have the right to be there and participate in it as long as the protest doesn’t get violent. That is when you have to rethink how a protest should be run or even handled with. In this case with abortion clinics, the protesters have the right to be there and as long as they don’t get violent, there is nothing anyone can do; legally, to move them from the premises.
I agree with the SCOTUS's decision to make a buffer around abortion clinics because although the anti-abortion protesters may be the majority, the protests can get violent and one of the people attempting to get the abortion can get hurt. It is also a hassle for the person getting the abortion to be harassed as they go in and out of the clinic.
I agree with the SCOTUS decision! Protesters are just voicing their own opinion, which is protected under the First Amendment. In this case the anti-abortion protesters are just voicing their opinion about abortion. It may be uncomfortable for the person getting an abortion, but they can't do anything about it. Protests should be protected because it is freedom of speech and some protests have a positive outcome.
I agree with SCOTUS decision as well. All the people out their protesting against abortion are just voicing their opinion in which the First Amendment protects. These protesters won't change the minds of people who want to get abortions. In the end protesters should be protected because it is freedom of speech
-Louis Bellido
I agree with the SCOTUS decision because as Ed and Steven mentioned, protesting is the voice of a group and it does not stop anyone from having an abortion. The only time a protest should be stopped is when the protest turns from voicing an opinion, to harassing and assaulting someone who is against the protestor’s side. It doesn’t makes sense to give abortion patients this power because if abortion clinics need buffer zones to protect pro-abortion patients, then same-sex marriage supporters need some type of protection from those who oppose same-sex marriage. The US Supreme court needs to make sure that both sides of an issue are balanced in rights and this decision balances this issue in my opinion.
I am of the belief that all people should have the of protection against harrassement. It's illegal to constantly peck at some one's life decisions, and I believe that protesters, even though they have the right to protest,they don't have the right to harass the patients while they are going to the clinic, and it's harassment since they are personally verbally attacking the patients, and in the case that their rights interfere then I do agree with the precident that the government has tried to keep but I believe that their should be constant discusion over the rights of people and individuals.
I agree with the decision that SCOTUS came with. A buffer wouldn't violate the protestors rights and it would help to make the women at the clinics to feel more comfortable as they are already making a very difficult and emotional decision. I believe this is a very respective decision to both rights.
I completely agree with the SCOTUS decision. It is completely legal for a group of individuals to protest in front of any abortion clinic. They have their first amendment rights to express their "disgust" in the process that is: abortion. As Katherine said, if things become out of hand, such as some of the protesters taking violent approaches in spreading their message, then that's when the police should take action. It is quite tough to "balance" cases where multiple rights are being "violated". To me personally, the First Amendment has to have a bigger weight when it comes to deciding on situations such as protesting, in comparison to the 14th amendment, in which people are protected from being discriminated. Verbal disagreements are okay, but violent ones are not.
I agree with the SCOTUS decision to have a buffer around abortion clinics. Putting up a border around the abortion clinics don't just protect the women getting the abortion, but also the doctors preforming the procedure. Abortions have always been a sensitive subject to people. Many people who believe that it is wrong protect about it, and it's their right to do so, peacefully. The First Amendment gives everyone the right to PEACEFUL assembly. Since Abortion is such a sensitive subject, there is a very high risk of it turing violent. The First Amendment doesn't protect against violent assembly. The buffers around the abortion clinics aren't stopping people from a peaceful protect, it's just protecting the women and doctors that are inside.
Just to clarify, we all understand that the SCOTUS ruled that there should NOT be a buffer around clinics, correct?
I agree with the SCOTUS decision. People should be allowed to protest in any form that they wish to. Yet, I also believe that harming the women mentally should not be okay. The remarks make the women feel uncomfortable and unsafe when they have already made a difficult choice. Although, it doesn't stop them in the process of having an abortion, it makes the process far more difficult than it was to begin with. Once the protests get violent, which they tend to, the government should get involved. No one should feel attacked and hurt in a personal life decision that they're making. It does not effect anyone else but those getting an abortion, even though pro-life advocates may say otherwise. Everyone has their own reason for having an abortion and if people fail to be considerate of it, they are allowed to protest against it.
I definitely agree with SCOTUS decision. Protesting at an abortion clinic isn't illegal at all let alone any clinic. The only thing people are doing during protesting are just voicing there opinion, and they're not even causing any harm to anybody. But just like the first amendment states they have the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly. Many people think having an abortion is a terrible idea to make, but maybe others just need to hear it from others that it's a bad idea and that's why they may be protesting on to help someone or just out of hate. They don't have to agree with those who are protesting against having an abortion. No one can really tell them that what they're is wrong or anything cause all they are doing are just voicing there opinion.
I agree with SCOTUS decision because the protesters are just voicing what they believe in. In the First Amendment it states that we have freedom of speech and what the protesters are doing is completely legal. Some may agree and disagree that having an abortion is a terrible choice but once they Jere someone else's point of view and they don't agree and may become violent but that shouldn't be the case because its their decsion and no one else's.
I agree with the SCOTUS decision on this case. This decision helps protect the women who choose to go to abortion clinics, but it also does not infringe upon anyone's rights. Even though the protesters are being forced to keep their distance, this decision does not violate the First Amendment. The SCOTUS was able to come up with an answer that protects both parties' rights. As long as the protesters don't cause any violence and try to hurt anyone, they will be protected. Even though a big crowd of people are present and shouting out, there shouldn't be any cause of alarm because the crowd is just voicing their opinions and there is not much that can be done and no way to take away their rights.
-Jonathan Greene
The protesters have every right to stand up for their beliefs. If in any way this protest turns violent then it would need to be shut down but it is their constitutional right to protest. Like Ed stated the protesters are not preventing anyone from getting an abortion they are simply stating their belief. However the moment they prevent a women from getting an abortion they should. For these reason I support SCOTUS decision.
The First Amendment provides civilians with the right to protest how they feel. Which states that as long as the protestors do not cause harm towards others. I agree with the SCOTUS decision , it was completely legal for the group of people to protest in front of he Abortion clinic. If the protestors cause any type of harm such as; the protestors walking into the clinic and getting into physical altercations with the doctors and Nurses, in which the clinic has to call the Police to handle the situation. This is a very tough situation in which multiple rights are being violated. I think that the First Amendment has to be heavily taken into consideration when deciding on protesting rights, versus the 14th Amendment, in which protects civilians from being discriminated against. But that is only when the discrimination has come violent.
-Sham Abrha
I would have to agree with the SCOTUS decision. The only reason that a buffer would be needed is if the protesters are physically preventing the patients from getting an abortion. The protesters do indeed have the right to state their opinion with peaceful protests as well as it is the right for whomever to get an abortion if they so will. Also, wouldn’t it be possible for the protesters to protest even if a buffer was placed? I mean all the buffer is doing is preventing the patients from being harmed from protesters. Anyways, I believe that a buffer should be placed if the protesters begin to use violence as a method of protest.
-Daniel Negron
I agree with the SCOTUS decision because the protestors are just stating their beliefs. They are not violating anything because the first amendment grants them the rights to freedom of speech. The protestors have the right to protest around abortion clinics as long as it does not turn into violence. The women there do not have to listen to what the protestors say, it is entirely up to them on whether or not they want an abortion. The protestors can even help change someones mind if they decide that it may be a bad decision but it doesn't stop them from having an abortion.
- Richard Ting
I agree with the Supreme Court's decision. Although I don't personally agree with anti-abortion protestors, the protestors are not causing any harm by standing in front of the abortion clinics. Creating a buffer is definitely a violation of their first amendment rights because their freedom is breached. If the protesting leads to other things like violence or any form physical contact then it's time to draw the line, as Bronsin stated.
As well as many other students, I agree with the SCOTUS decision. People who are protesting outside clinic aren't forcing anyone to stop having abortions. If these were forceful protests then it would no longer be legal. The people who are protesting have a voice, even though other people may disagree with what they're doing is all still legal. The requiring of a buffer isn't a violation of the first amendment. The protesters aren't being denied their right to protest, they are just given restriction within certain proximity of the abortion clinic. Overall I agree with the SCOTUS decision. People may protest outside an abortion clinic and the buffer doesn't go against the first amendment.
I agree with the SCOTUS decision. The buffer's purpose is to protect anyone going in to get an abortion, however, it interferes with protesters who are only allowed to protest if there is no violence. The fact that the protesters are only allowed to protest if they are nonviolent renders the buffer zone obsolete. There is no reason to enforce a buffer zone to protect customers from protesters, when the protesters have no real intent on violently interfering.
There should not be a buffer and the SCOTUS decision therefore was correct. These people protesting outside the clinics, are protesting in the best spot possible in route to there goal of making abortion illegal. Although they may not be getting very far, and may be disturbing and angering the people attending or working at the clinic, they have every right to voice there opinions. Of course, as soon as these protests get violent, they are no longer in the right and are not protected by the First Amendment.
I completely agree with the SCOTUS decision. Peaceful protesters should have the right to protest what they wish, even if it sometimes doesn't make sense. They also are not stopping anyone from getting abortions, they are merely trying to convince people not to. Unless they are becoming violent, there is no reason to "protect" patients from the protesters. In cases where, like Gabbie said, patients are being physically hurt, then it would be illegal, otherwise, it wouldn't.
We are protected under the 1st Amendment to peacefully assemble, so I suppose this is a kind of ethical issue which the definition of "peaceful" would have to be clarified. It seems pro-choice supporters consider the physical, emotional and/or financial states of the women who are about to have an abortion more so than adamant anti-abortion supporters.
From an ethical viewpoint, requiring buffers around abortion clinics to keep women inside the establishment a "safe" distance from protesters is the best way to go so that an abortion can be carried out in the least stressful way possible. Technically this would not be a violation of anyone's 1st Amendment rights because no one is exactly being prevented from gathering and exercising their freedom of speech. Really, there is no issue with protesting abortion at all except perhaps that it's uncomfortable for those inside the clinics to hear and/or see.
In the end, however, so long as the protests remain peaceful and no one's life or personal safety is endangered, there is no need for the government to require buffers to keep protesters away.
I would like to address the question Derrick, and many others, has asked: If it's not stopping them from protesting, is it a violation of the First Amendment? See, it's not that the buffer is preventing them from protesting, because it definitely isn't. The issue, is that it is preventing them from protesting on PUBLIC property. See, if we aloud this buffer to continue, it would become a slippery slope. What is to stop a cooperate business from moving worker strikes to a location farm from the place of work via "buffer"?
Although I am not a supporter of abortion, I don’t agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. From what I understand is that the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts law creating no-protest buffer zones surrounding health clinics that perform abortions. The Supreme Court made that decision because the protesters said their First Amendment rights were violated. I don’t see how their rights are violated. They are not allowed to be within 35 feet from the clinics, but they can still voice their opinions against abortion somewhere else. If the Supreme Court protects these protesters’ 1st amendment rights, then who protects the patients’ 9th and 14th amendments rights? I think that it is more necessary to protect the patients’ rights than the protesters’ rights. I also agree with what Gabbie and Naomi said. Going through an abortion for a woman is a tough decision, the buffers should have been kept to protect women both physically and emotionally from the protesters.
-Minh Truong
I agree with the decision made by the SCOTUS in requiring a buffer around abortion clinics to protect patients from Anti-Abortion supporters. Protesters can protest all they want as it’s their right to protest and this buffer will not violate their rights to protest. However, if the protest becomes violent then the protesting would no longer be legal and would have to stop. Protesters have the rights to state their beliefs, but can’t be violent about them. The creation of a buffer was the right thing as women going to abortion clinics can get harassed by protesters if they’re violent ones.
- Anthony Hoang
I do agree with the SCOTUS decision. As long as they don’t do harm, they are still protected by the first amendment. And even if abortion is protected, the first amendment still let’s them raise their voice. However, the buffer was created for a reason. For example, Operation Rescue. Though their mission to end abortion might seem harmless, they ended up killing Dr. David Gunn in 1992. Things like this probably prompted for a buffer. Whilst the buffer is still one of the best measures of security to protect patients, as long as they just stand outside with “Planned Parenthood, Planned Murder” signs, they are protected by free speech laws.
-Francisco Alvarez
I completely agree with the SCOTUS decision that a buffer would be in violation of the first amendment rights of the protesters. So long as the people protesting don't become violent towards those going in and out of the abortion clinics their rights should not be infringed upon. To set up a "buffer Zone" around these clinics would definitely violate their first amendment rights. Whether or not people agree or disagree with the protesters, the protesters have every right to peacefully assemble and protest what they believe to be correct.
Yes, I agree the decision by the Supreme Court. It comes down to the right to feel safe in your environment. For example, if you go to an amusement park, it is the park's job to ensure that their customers are being protected against potential threats. As a result, the park takes the proper measures, adding metal detectors and security guards at the gates. So when a woman who may potentially be getting an abortion pulls up to the clinic and sees a huge group of people heckling her for making that choice, it may make the woman feel unsafe and as a result she may be pressured to change her decision. Although protesting is not illegal, oftentimes protests in this field of discussion can get heated and may boil over and result in violence. And violence is illegal, so why not just stop it at it's root cause which would be the protest?
-Varun Kaushal
I completely agree with the SCOTUS decision.Having a buffer would violate the first amendment rights of the people that are protesting. The people protesting outside should have their rights protected just as much as the people going to the clinics rights are. As long as the protesters are not becoming violent towards the people entering the clinics the protesting is perfectly legal.Most protesters are just there to be heard and do not intend to cause harm to anyone. The only damage these protests would cause is making a woman change her mind about following through with getting an abortion.
I don't agree with the supreme court's decision. As you said sometimes its hard to decide between two sets of right. In this case its true that the protesters have the right to to protest in public but on the other side lots of people who tried to do abortion got injured because of those protesters, such as the Army of God case. So its tough to give the right to either side, one of one of them has the freedom of speech according to first amendment and one of them has the right to be safe. I personally believe that the right should be given to people who want to do abortion not protester. I believe people's lives are more important than not having some exceptions in laws.
I think that yes this is a violation of the protestor's rights however they are obstructing a business's ability to perform service's by making women uncomfortable. If the protest obstructs the business a compromise must be made and in this case, the choice of having a buffer is the compromise. It allows for neither of their rights to be ignored while somewhat helping the situation.
I absolutely agree with SCOTUS' decision. The protesters should be given the right to protest something which they believe is wrong. It is a right that is protected under the 1st Amendment. In this case, anti-abortion advocates on abortion clinics. No matter what the case may be, SCOTUS' must always protect the right to protest. However, if the protesters were to get rowdy and start to commence violent acts. A buffer zone must therefore be enacted in order to protect those who's lives may be in danger.
-Luis Godinez
I do agree with the decision made by SCOTUS to create a buffer between Anti-Abortion supporters and clinic patients. In this case, the Supreme Court is not violating protester's first amendment right to protest. This new buffer is actually preventing any violence from occurring between those who already made a difficult decision to receive an abortion. If the protesters become violent, the buffer will then prove its purpose in keeping peace, since the protests would no longer be considered legal.
The SCOTUS decided that they would deny the buffer around the clinics which is the right thing to do. I agree with the SCOTUS decision because the first amendment gives the protesters the right to protest. The protesters are only putting their opinions out there, so a buffer around the abortion clinic is not necessary. However, if the protesters are mentally harming the women is not okay, but then again it does not prevent the women from getting the abortion. The protesters cannot stop the abortion, so it is okay for the protesters to protest whatever they believe in.
-Pammela Wilson
As long as the protests are peaceful, I do agree with the SCOTUS decision. Legally, these protesters have every right to state their beliefs and opinions in a public place therefore a buffer is not necessary. I agree with Pammela for the fact that these protesters can't stop the abortion so as long as things don't get out of hand, there should be nothing wrong with this decision.
-Nicole Chellew
Yes, I do agree with the SCOTUS' decision to create a buffer around abortion clinics for the own safety of their patients. There is nothing wrong with taking extra precautions to ensure their protection. And at the same time, you are not violating any laws or breaking the 1st Amendment because Anti-Abortion supporters are still able to protest. This also prepares for the worst, just in case the protests did get violent that the clinical patients inside would feel safe and secure.
I agree with SCOTUS decision. A buffer around abortion clinics to protect parients, people should feel safe in their environment. People protesting should have their rights protected, I agree with Vanessa's opion that most protesters are just there to be heard and not intend to cause harm to people. The protesters have right to protest in what they believe. But from my point of view im against abortion. I agree with Minh's opion that its tough decision for woman going through an abortion. -Nhi N.
I completely agree with the SCOTUS' decision of creating a buffer between abortion clinics and the protesters. It gives the women the protection they need and their right to take responsibility for their own health care. There have been many cases where protesters had violently and physically attacked the women seeking an abortion or had blocked the openings of abortion clinics so the women could not enter. Some women have been so terrified of facing the protesters that they actually cancel their appointments or do not show up. Although the protesters must stand 35 feet away from the clinics, it still allows them to voice what they believe in and does not violate the First Amendment.
-Drew Valadez
I agree with the SCOTUS desicion to require a buffer at abortion clinics. This will help prevent many problems between protesters and the women going to the clinics. Protesters have the right to speak freely about how they feel as long as they do not get violent, but many times they are, which is why a buffer would help. I also agree that it is not easy for women to go to abortion clinics in the first place, especially if they feel they are being harassed by protesters, therefore requiring a buffer would be a benefit, women will be protected and protesters will still be able to voice how they feel.
- Sara Gonzalez
I reluctantly agree with the SCOTUS decision. The buffer is a violation of the protesters' freedom and hinders their right to express their opinions. Although it may not seem morally right since their freedom to protest comes at the expense of the comfort of the women who wish to enter the clinic for an abortion. But like the women have the right to make decisions regarding their own bodies, the protesters have the freedom to stand as close to the clinic as they want and protest. Only when the protest turns physical or threatening to the women's safety should local law enforcement be called in and the case be brought to the government's attention.
The decision of the SCOTUS is just for the protestors are doing no more than voicing their opinions. They are not stopping anyone from actually entering and getting an abortion. A buffer would only be needed if the Anti-Abortion supporters were to get violent and attack the patients of the clinic. But without the presence of violence around the clinic the need for a buffer isn’t really a need. This situation is exactly the same as the Westboro Baptist Church and other groups against homosexuality that protest at gay pride parades and funerals of gays. The protestors are there to simply be heard not to force their opinions down people’s throats with violence. For the decision against providing a buffer for the sake of both sides having their rights protected, I agree.
I don't feel creating a buffer violates the first amendment at all because the protestors are creating harm. There have been times were protests get physical and I'm sure they cause emotional harm on the women in the clinics. The buffer is great for the safety of the women while they make such big decisions.
-Jasmine Johal
I agree with the decision made from the SCOTUS on behalf of the revoking the buffer zone from abortion clinics. If violence or misconduct is made within the grounds of protest, only then would a buffer would be a necessary solution. Other than that circumstance, it wouldn't be appropriate to draw to that conclusion. Pushing a buffer during a peaceful protest would revoke the protestors of rights to assemble, conflicting with the First Amendment. It just isn't fair.
In my opinion, buffer zones should be treated as a "last resort" option. For example, if the situation has strong potential of a violence breakout, warnings could be given and a buffer zone will be considered.
Anyways with the court's decisions, everyone's opinion in the matter can be respected. Women are free to make a decisions on their bodies while protestors can continue to stand for their beliefs. As long as no violence is ensued, the public is safe to do as they please (within reason, of course.)
I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to not have a buffer around clinics. The first amendment grants people the freedom to voice their opinion so as long as these protestors are staying non violent, they should have the right to. I also agree with Ed in that this protesting isn’t directly stopping anyone from getting an abortion. These people are there to speak their minds and express themselves, and even though people might not agree with it, it is definitely still legal and that having this buffer around the clinics would be unfair to the protestors because they are not harassing or assaulting anyone. If they were to grant the buffer, it would give these abortion clinics special rights and would violating the first amendment. So overall, I agree with the SCOTUS decision. -Vicky Le
I agree with SCOTUS that requiring a buffer around abortion clinics against protesters is a violation of the first amendment. The Anti-Abortion supporters have the right to protest and declare their opinions, as long as they do not get out of hand, as all exclamations should have their limits. Although people inside or around abortion clinics may disapprove of the protesters’ actions, there could possibly be a compromise. Depending on the buffer (distance, requirements, etc.) and the severity or mildness of the protesters’ actions, defending both of their rights by reaching an agreement can fulfill the “compelling state interest.”
I feel like the decision from the SCOTUS is the right one. When a group of people are protesting in front of an abortion clinic it does not stop the doctors from completing the operation. I have no problem of protesting unless it starts or turns out violence or disrupting the peace. This goes back to the first amendment with freedom of speech, giving the protestors the right to giving their opinion whether it a positive one or a negative one.
-David Awolowo
I feel like the decision from the SCOTUS is the right one. When a group of people are protesting in front of an abortion clinic it does not stop the doctors from completing the operation. I have no problem of protesting unless it starts or turns out violence or disrupting the peace. This goes back to the first amendment with freedom of speech, giving the protestors the right to giving their opinion whether it a positive one or a negative one.
-David Awolowo
Yes i agree with the decision to create a buffer. Firstly it prevents violence from protesters and gives those getting abortion a bit more privacy and comfort because they wont have to be demonized right outside in the clinic which isn't right. Protest is fine whether the opinion is popular or not but being more respectful is essential. In these situation finding a common ground and at the same time fulfilling the states interests is key to peaceful regulation. That has proven to be more important than just the protection of one single amendment over another.
At face value, I would have to agree with the SCOTUS decision, only because of the technicality of the situation. In the case of McCullen v. Coakley, which I assume is what we’re talking about here, the 35 feet buffer zone is really too broad and with that distance the protesters are very limited to what they could voice out, if anything at all. The American Civil Liberties Union wrote “We agree that a fixed buffer zone imposes serious First Amendment costs, but we also think the Court underestimated the proven difficulty of protecting the constitutional rights of women seeking abortions by enforcing other laws – especially regarding harassment – outside abortion clinics.” Just like how patients should have the ability to get an abortion, protestors should have the ability to voice on why people shouldn’t. However, we do need more enforcement about the harassment, emotional abuse, and violence that happen around these clinics as well. Especially with the recent articles from clinic escorts. We should protect our first amendment rights as protesters, but also equally protect patients rights as human beings. ~Huong Le
I believe that the decision that the SCOTUS made is the correct one. I also don't personally agree protesting, i believe that someone who disapproves or has a different opinion about something has the right to say something about it, but not to stand around a public area disturbing the peace. I also agree with Sara that for some women it was probably already difficult enough to have even decide to have an abortion, and having people protesting their disapproval isn't making them feel any better. Not saying that i agree with abortion but one does have to be reasonable with subjects such as this. Some women get raped and some even pregnant after getting raped, for some women its asking too much to have the baby of a rapist. Or for teenagers being the age that some of us are and having our whole lives ahead of us, a baby can change your whole life. I also agree that creating a buffer could help not only maintain the peace but also protect women in the clinics. But it goes back to the First Amendment, the people protesting have their rights and are protected as well as long as they are not harming anyone.
-Sabrina Vargas (out of the country)
I absolutely agree with the SCOTUS decision.It is completely legal for a group of individuals to protest in a public place as long as they are not harming anyone and as for the people protesting in front of abortion clinics they are just expressing their opinion not really harming anyone and they are trying to let the people walking in to the clinics that they have other options as well if they don't feel ready to have a baby or if they have been raped and feel like they couldn't take care of the child because of what happened . As for the protester I think its harsh for the people having an abortion to see people judging them,but they are expressing there opinions, because they don't know exactly what you went through and they are not able to do much about them since they are not physically harming anyone.
-Miriam Juarez
It's in the first amendment, the right to protest. As long as these anti-abortion protesters do not get out of control, then it is their protected right to speak and protest their opinion. If its not harming the clinics, then there should be no buffer.
-Christian Trujano
Having a buffer outside of the abortion clinic will not change anyones opinion about abortion. Most people who have chosen abortion already have their minds set. However, protesting your opinion does not violate the first amendment. First amendment states freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, and a few others. Protesting abortion is not illegal, but it is annoying. Therefore, I agree with SCOTUS decision.
-Luis Plascencia
The anti abortion protesters should be left alone as long as they don't keep people from getting abortions and don't hurt anyone. It's freedom of speech. If this buffer is allowed or enforced then what's to stop the government from buffering my protest at city hall.
I personally don't think a buffer would be a bad thing in this situation. The buffer doesn't keep the protesters from voicing their opinions. I see it as simply a safety precaution for the women who are trying to get an abortion. As stated earlier, there are situations where it would be harmful for certain women to carry and birth a child. Also, there can be other issues with some women having a baby as well. There are many women who do not have the capability to raise a child or simply afford to care for one. Perhaps the protesters don't think of these things or don't care but I think that the government should for the well being of these women.
Post a Comment