Let Us Harass People More!

A group of anti-abortion people have filed suit in Massachusetts because they cannot harass people enough to their taste. They claim that the buffer zones--enacted after an anti-abortion zealot went on a shooting spree in 1994--makes it to too hard for them to adequately tell a woman she's a murderer.

A team of abortion opponents asked a federal judge yesterday to strike down a state law that creates a protest-free zone around the entrances, exits, and driveways of abortion clinics, saying the zones unconstitutionally infringe on their right to free speech.

The group argued that a review of the zones at Planned Parenthood facilities in Boston, Worcester, and Springfield shows that the zones restrict protesters from properly conveying their message against abortion and their offers to help expectant mothers. They called the issue serious, given that life and death are involved.

“There needs to be a means of true communication,’’ said Michael J. DePrimo, a civil rights lawyer based in Connecticut who represents several of the protesters in the case.[...]

But Kenneth W. Salinger, an assistant state attorney general, argued yesterday that the buffer zones provide adequate opportunity to conduct lawful protests or to try to send a message to people seeking services from abortion clinics.

He said the lawsuit was based on protesters’ frustration that a majority of people do not want to listen to their message.

“They can, and do, share their messages outside the buffer zones,’’ said Salinger, adding that those who seek clinic services then make clear that they are not interested.

US District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro told the lawyers to submit more documents and said he will then take the matter under advisement.

[...]

[DePrimo] said protesters, who he argued have been successful before in helping women decide against abortion, should be able to speak personally and compassionately with patients, and distribute brochures by hand, rather than have to yell and wave signs.

No. No. NO. They should not, in fact, be able to get in someone's face and try to inundate that person with "information" or be that physically close to someone trying to get into a medical care facility (hello, "inadvertent" blocking the way).

DePrimo argued that courts have upheld a person’s right not only to send a message to someone, but to have the means to try to persuade them. He also argued that state law must provide for an alternative means for protesters to spread their messages as personally as they have in the past.

Oh, you mean like shooting people? You know, the whole reason the buffer zone went into effect?

No. Just no. It is disgusting (and sadly not new) that it is being seriously argued in court that people should be able to accost and harass ("personally talk to") anyone in order to "talk them out of" (scare, fear tactics) a medcial procedure (which, may I add, that the protestor has no way of knowing if that is why a person is visiting a clinic).