The Massachusetts Legislature, emboldened by recent wins in the courts restricting the free speech of pro-lifers and by complete control of all branches of government by pro-aborts, is preparing to expand the so-called “buffer zones” around abortion clinics.
A bill that would establish a 35-foot no-protest zone around clinics where abortions are performed won the support of the state Senate yesterday and now proceeds to the House, where at least 75 lawmakers have endorsed it.
The legislation would almost double the current 18-foot buffer zone and bar protester from entering it. Currently, protesters may come within 6 feet of someone within the zone to provide counsel or share information, as long as the individual consents.
The pro-aborts, who are supposedly all about choice, are opposed to informed choice, apparently. They want to create zones around the death clinics that allow fathers and boyfriends to drive up and drag their daughters/girlfriends into the clinics without interference. That’s not hyperbole; I’ve seen it done with my own eyes. Again, so much for choice.
Where are all the civil libertarians who are always so concerned about the Bill of Rights? Where are they when our free speech is trampled?
I wonder how they would react to a proposal to set up buffer zones around Armed Forces recruiting offices? How quickly would the ACLU file a lawsuit protesting the silencing of anti-war activists?
Some women are pressured by others, I’ve seen that too, and I was happy to be outside a clinic one day when a young woman was very clearly arguing with her bf about going in. He wanted her to, she didn’t want to. She won in the end and they drove off!
If our presence there played any role in her refusing, that gives me alot of joy. But some women do of course go in not under any obvious pressure from others, although the latter group are still under duress – who but a mother under SOME kind of duress would abort her child?
I’m furious about this buffer zone expansion, and I’m even more angry that apparently, according to a friend of mine who is very politically involved, the senate did a voice vote – so there is no record of how each senator voted. I didn’t know there was such a thing. How could that be possible in a representative democracy? I’m calling my rep tomorrow to voice my strong desire that he vote against it. Nice to see that the Herald printed an editorial today pointing out how wrong the expanded zone is.
Looks like it’s time to start showing up in more abortionist’s neighborhoods to picket peacefully. No buffer zones there, yet.
We need to be honest too though about prolifers who sabotage our cause – sorry, but dressing up as the Grim Reaper, or what I’ve seen myself and heard about from others, people yelling, “Mama” to the women going in? Yes, it’s their “right” to do those things, but it’s counterproductive. I can almost guarantee you that no woman is going to turn around and talk to someone that she feels is harassing her. That’s true under any circumstances, obviously, but especially at such a difficult and vulnerable time.
“the senate did a voice vote – so there is no record of how each senator voted.”
Yep. I called Marian Walsh’s office today. How common are voice votes vs roll call votes? Anyone know? Also called my Rep’s ofc too to voice my opposition.
You can ask the ACLU to help. They might.
In 2006, they filed a lawsuit on behalf of Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of a controversial conservative Christian church, over a Missouri law that infringes on her rights to religious liberty and free speech. The law in question bans protest or picketing “in front of or about” any location in which a funeral is being held or any funeral procession. The law was enacted to prevent members of Phelps-Roper’s church from conducting their protests, which many find to be anti-gay and anti-American. As unpopular as that church is with liberals, the ACLU took up her cause anyway, since it was a free speech issue.