US top court rejects abortion clinic 'buffer zones'
Raf Sanchez

WASHINGTON: -- The US Supreme Court has struck down a law intended to protect women walking into abortion clinics from harassment by evangelical Christian protesters.

The Massachusetts law established "buffer zones" of 10.7 metres around the clinics and prohibited demonstrators from speaking to women entering for the procedure. The legislation was passed in 2007 after violent anti-abortion protests.

Thursday's ruling found the law violated the protesters' right to free speech under the US Constitution.

The Supreme Court called the Massachusetts law "an extreme step", ruling that "the buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve [Massachusetts's] asserted interests".

Full story: http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-top-court-rejects-abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-20140627-zsnnl.html


-- The Age 2014-06-27

The "gang of 5" deserve not only impeachment and disbarment but a nice place in sunny GitMo.

"Gang of 5?" I'm not familiar with that term. Are those the people killing babies inside these clinics? If so then I agree.

"Gang of 5?" I'm not familiar with that term. Are those the people killing babies inside these clinics? If so then I agree.

Couple of points I would like to make, especially for non-American readers so they do not think all Americans are nuts. I say this in general, not directed at deesquared.

1). Ironically, the Supreme Court itself is surrounded by a "protective zone" where, as a citizen I am not allowed to demonstrate. Another case of U.S. Legilstive, Judicial or Executive government branches excluding themselves from the regulations/laws they enforce.

2). As to "killing babies". If my wife and I find out through medical testing that a being will be born with birth defects, it is not anyone else's religious beliefs that should dictate to us that we must bear the emotional/psychological/financial burden. Nor, I would say, should it be forced for others to bear that burden.

"Gang of 5?" I'm not familiar with that term. Are those the people killing babies inside these clinics? If so then I agree.

Couple of points I would like to make, especially for non-American readers so they do not think all Americans are nuts. I say this in general, not directed at deesquared.

1). Ironically, the Supreme Court itself is surrounded by a "protective zone" where, as a citizen I am not allowed to demonstrate. Another case of U.S. Legilstive, Judicial or Executive government branches excluding themselves from the regulations/laws they enforce.

2). As to "killing babies". If my wife and I find out through medical testing that a being will be born with birth defects, it is not anyone else's religious beliefs that should dictate to us that we must bear the emotional/psychological/financial burden. Nor, I would say, should it be forced for others to bear that burden.

This isn't about a right to abortion, nor was that addressed or threatened. It isn't about protection of the Supreme Court.

It's about free speech and the right of the people to assemble. Those are constitutional rights. The people continue to re-affirm their constitutional rights.

"Gang of 5?" I'm not familiar with that term. Are those the people killing babies inside these clinics? If so then I agree.

Couple of points I would like to make, especially for non-American readers so they do not think all Americans are nuts. I say this in general, not directed at deesquared.

1). Ironically, the Supreme Court itself is surrounded by a "protective zone" where, as a citizen I am not allowed to demonstrate. Another case of U.S. Legilstive, Judicial or Executive government branches excluding themselves from the regulations/laws they enforce.

2). As to "killing babies". If my wife and I find out through medical testing that a being will be born with birth defects, it is not anyone else's religious beliefs that should dictate to us that we must bear the emotional/psychological/financial burden. Nor, I would say, should it be forced for others to bear that burden.

Yes, that is correct. In America you would have the legal right to kill your baby.

2). As to "killing babies". If my wife and I find out through medical testing that a being will be born with birth defects, it is not anyone else's religious beliefs that should dictate to us that we must bear the emotional/psychological/financial burden. Nor, I would say, should it be forced for others to bear that burden.

Almost no one in America would disagree with you on that. I know that I wouldn't. I think it is healthy babies being aborted that the majority of the pro-life folks object to.

The American Supreme Court is an embarrassment. The "gang of five", the conservative majority that long ago gave up any pretense of doing the work they were appointed to do. They are the most politicized and most corporate orientated court in history. You can point to the Supreme court as the #1 reason a Republican should never be President again.

As far as killing babies go, try caring once they get out of the womb. That's where the caring for any one else stops for a Republican, except one's own wallet.

Well, all nine justices voted to strike down the law, including the liberals, so there goes that "gang of five" theory.

The American Supreme Court is an embarrassment. The "gang of five", the conservative majority that long ago gave up any pretense of doing the work they were appointed to do. They are the most politicized and most corporate orientated court in history. You can point to the Supreme court as the #1 reason a Republican should never be President again.

As far as killing babies go, try caring once they get out of the womb. That's where the caring for any one else stops for a Republican, except one's own wallet.

No what is an embarrassment is those who do not or refuse to know and understand the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This case was an overreach of the Commonwealth of Mass. that made an Unconstitutional law. It's really about nothing else. They tried to restrict, unlawfully, Free Speech. The case had nothing to do with abortion. Much the same as Obama being smacked for unlawful appointments t0 the US NLRB.

Well, all nine justices voted to strike down the law, including the liberals, so there goes that "gang of five" theory.

Easy there, UG.

You just destroyed several thousand liberal brain cells with that little bit of information.

I don't believe the Republicans have been nearly as damaging as the Democrats.

The main stream press which is liberal and pro-democrat does a great job of hiding the truth. Historically it has been the Republicans who forged ahead on landmark legislation for freedoms, and the Democrats who dragged their feet.

Republican Lincoln freed the slaves. The Democrats had the KKK with bonfires and lynchings clear up until at least the 1960's. Democrat Lyndon Johnson voted against and fought against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 when he was in Congress. It wasn't until he was president in the late 1960's that he realized he could gain blocks of voters by signing The Great Society which began the bleeding of public coffers so bad that within 5 years Republican Nixon had to take the US off the gold standard so money could be printed to pay for the folly.

The rights of women to vote was repeatedly knocked down by the Democrats for 40 years until the Republicans got control the Congress and rammed through the 19th Amendment to the constitution.

That "gang of 5" has been a last bastion of hope for American freedoms under the constitution. If Democrats controlled that court there wouldn't be much freedom left.

The American Supreme Court is an embarrassment. The "gang of five", the conservative majority that long ago gave up any pretense of doing the work they were appointed to do. They are the most politicized and most corporate orientated court in history. You can point to the Supreme court as the #1 reason a Republican should never be President again.

As far as killing babies go, try caring once they get out of the womb. That's where the caring for any one else stops for a Republican, except one's own wallet.

Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the executive order demanding that the first black woman in history - Autherine Lucy - be admitted to a Southern University - The University of Alabama - in 1956. A lot of people thought that it was over with the freeing of the slaves, but in the South the discrimination and failure to see blacks as humans continued into at least the 1970's. It was the Republicans who knocked that down.

Forget your opposition to the gang of five or in this case the unanimous gang of 9 who voted for the Constitution. If the US ever gets a Supreme Court which is destroying the Constitution, there will be another Civil War.

I once read a headline, right to lifer shoots an abortionist dead. True or tabloid stuff?

I once read a headline, right to lifer shoots an abortionist dead. True or tabloid stuff?

I don't know. In a country with the world's 3 largest population, a lot of things are going to happen, both good and bad.

It's just that the liberal - commie - socialists like to sensationalize things which are statistically insignificant.

2). As to "killing babies". If my wife and I find out through medical testing that a being will be born with birth defects, it is not anyone else's religious beliefs that should dictate to us that we must bear the emotional/psychological/financial burden. Nor, I would say, should it be forced for others to bear that burden.

Almost no one in America would disagree with you on that. I know that I wouldn't. I think it is healthy babies being aborted that the majority of the pro-life folks object to.

I couldn't agree more, you have hit the nail on the head, (hope you are not too shocked!!). I don't think one necessarily has to be a card carrying member of pro-life to believe that healthy babies being aborted for no good reason is objectionable. Of course there are exceptions, rape, incest etc. In my previous life in the UK i worked for the Health Service, for a while as a technician in operating theatres. It was not uncommon to see terminations being performed on patients for the second, or even third time, sometimes on patients who were not yet twenty. They were effectively using abortion as a kind of birth control. This is clearly very very wrong, There is adequate birth control available to all, ignorance is no excuse.

I once read a headline, right to lifer shoots an abortionist dead. True or tabloid stuff?

It is true. Good point.

I once read a headline, right to lifer shoots an abortionist dead. True or tabloid stuff?

It is true. Good point.

Here's a counter-point.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kermit-gosnell-update-convicted-pa-abortion-doctor-gets-life-in-prison/

I once read a headline, right to lifer shoots an abortionist dead. True or tabloid stuff?

From the linked article:

"Eight people have been murdered at abortion clinics since 1977, according to the National Abortion Federation, a pro-choice group. The statistics also record 42 bombings..."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-top-court-rejects-abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-20140627-zsnnl.html#ixzz35qzVIMCT

When all 9 Justices agree then you have a case of bad legislation,

"However, all nine justices voted to strike down the law, saying Massachusetts had failed to find a balance between free speech and public order."

I once read a headline, right to lifer shoots an abortionist dead. True or tabloid stuff?

It is true. Good point.

Here's a counter-point.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kermit-gosnell-update-convicted-pa-abortion-doctor-gets-life-in-prison/

This is not a counter-point to anything.

By the very definition of the law, the man was not performing abortions, he was killing babies. The pro-abortion groups were just as much in favor of this man going to prison as the pro-life camp.

I once read a headline, right to lifer shoots an abortionist dead. True or tabloid stuff?

It is true. Good point.

Here's a counter-point.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kermit-gosnell-update-convicted-pa-abortion-doctor-gets-life-in-prison/

This is not a counter-point to anything.

By the very definition of the law, the man was not performing abortions, he was killing babies. The pro-abortion groups were just as much in favor of this man going to prison as the pro-life camp.

When did you take me off "ignore"?

He was killing babies while in the act of performing abortions.

He wasn't a house painter that just happened to kill babies on the side. Abortion was his business and he was supported by other abortionists.

I once read a headline, right to lifer shoots an abortionist dead. True or tabloid stuff?

It is true. Good point.

Here's a counter-point.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kermit-gosnell-update-convicted-pa-abortion-doctor-gets-life-in-prison/

This is not a counter-point to anything.

By the very definition of the law, the man was not performing abortions, he was killing babies.

Huh? He was an abortion doctor for many years and performed thousands of them legal and illegal. That was was his job.

It is true. Good point.

Here's a counter-point.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kermit-gosnell-update-convicted-pa-abortion-doctor-gets-life-in-prison/

This is not a counter-point to anything.

By the very definition of the law, the man was not performing abortions, he was killing babies.

Huh? He was an abortion doctor for many years and performed thousands of them legal and illegal. That was was his job.

OK...for clarity, this is a response to the link chuckD posted about a doctor convicted of murdering three babies. This man is a monster...he killed babies. No one supported this man in court, not even his family and not any pro-choice group. Some people appear to be constantly ruled by emotion to the point that they cannot reason and this may be another one of those topics for you; however,

As I clearly stated, by the definition of the law:

"Abortion is the spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before the fetus has developed to the stage of viability." End. Mosbys Medical dictionary, 8th Ed.

According to Rowe vs Wade, "viability" is defined as:

"The Court determined that States interest in the fetus became relevant only at viability, the point at which the fetus could survive independently from its mother. Government bans on abortion became limited to post-viability interventions." End.

Gosnell took a scissors and killed infants that were breathing, and were therefore considered "viable", in other words, he was not practicing abortion.

"They [the murder charges against Kermit Gosnell] arise because of the "born alive rule", a principle of common law which stipulates that by default, for legal purposes, personhood arises and therefore unlawful killing constituting murder becomes possible immediately upon the victim's being born alive."--Wikipedia

And from the Report of the Grand Jury:

"Surgical abortions in Pennsylvania, performed up to 24 weeks of gestational age, are legal. Killing living babies outside the womb is not. The neonatologist who testified before the Grand Jury defined born alive. According to this expert witness, the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act defines a human as somebody whos been completely expelled from the mother and has either a heartbeat, pulsating cord, or is moving.

http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/GrandJuryWomensMedical.pdf

So, I will say this one more time for your benenfit:

The man was not performing abortions, he was killing babies...and that is why he was convicted of murder.

Lastly, I have presented the legal basis for the case chuckD has chosen to present and explained why it is not a "counter-point" as he suggested. My views on abortion, like my religion are my own private business and my post should in no way be misinterpreted as being my own personal view on the subject of abortion.

Emotion has nothing to do with it. He was performing abortions and he was killing babies. He was an abortion doctor who also provided illegal procedures on the side. Those are the facts.

Emotion has nothing to do with it. He was performing abortions and he was killing babies. He was an abortion doctor who also provided illegal procedures on the side. Those are the facts.

This is your response? This is all you have?

Honestly, I had actually given you more credit than this or I would not have wasted so much time.

It is my sincere hope that you are never on a Jury.

Have a good weekend UG.

Emotion has nothing to do with it. He was performing abortions and he was killing babies. He was an abortion doctor who also provided illegal procedures on the side. Those are the facts.

This is your response? This is all you have?

That is more than enough. Posting a bunch of filler does not make your argument any stronger. You tried to claim that Gosnell did not perform abortions, but he ran the Women's Medical Society in West Philadelphia and performed as many as 1,000 abortions annually for 30 years. He was convicted of murdering 4 babies during that time. Chuckd's point was more than valid.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2013/0513/Abortion-doctor-Kermit-Gosnell-guilty-of-murdering-three-babies

Emotion has nothing to do with it. He was performing abortions and he was killing babies. He was an abortion doctor who also provided illegal procedures on the side. Those are the facts.

This is your response? This is all you have?

Honestly, I had actually given you more credit than this or I would not have wasted so much time.

It is my sincere hope that you are never on a Jury.

Have a good weekend UG.

Permit me to provide you with two very simple facts. These relate to your postings that have been quoted.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In your first post on the Gosnell conviction you said...

"By the very definition of the law, the man was not performing abortions, he was killing babies. The pro-abortion groups were just as much in favor of this man going to prison as the pro-life camp."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When questions were raised about this statement you came back with this...

"So, I will say this one more time for your benenfit: (sic)

The man was not performing abortions, he was killing babies...and that is why he was convicted of murder."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact is that you changed your position by adding the last sentence..."and that is why he was convicted of murder"

Had you said this in the first place you might have nearly been correct. You did not. You were wrong.

And that. kind sir, is a fact.

"Gang of 5?" I'm not familiar with that term. Are those the people killing babies inside these clinics? If so then I agree.

Couple of points I would like to make, especially for non-American readers so they do not think all Americans are nuts. I say this in general, not directed at deesquared.

1). Ironically, the Supreme Court itself is surrounded by a "protective zone" where, as a citizen I am not allowed to demonstrate. Another case of U.S. Legilstive, Judicial or Executive government branches excluding themselves from the regulations/laws they enforce.

2). As to "killing babies". If my wife and I find out through medical testing that a being will be born with birth defects, it is not anyone else's religious beliefs that should dictate to us that we must bear the emotional/psychological/financial burden. Nor, I would say, should it be forced for others to bear that burden.

This isn't about a right to abortion, nor was that addressed or threatened. It isn't about protection of the Supreme Court.

It's about free speech and the right of the people to assemble. Those are constitutional rights. The people continue to re-affirm their constitutional rights.

Disagree. Your rights go as far as my nose. When you block or inhibit my right to free access, you have crossed the line. The demonstrators at the clinics were harassing those seeking free access. That is why the protective zones were established. Let us see what now happens at the clinics...again by those who feel their religious beliefs have a right to dictate to others.

2). As to "killing babies". If my wife and I find out through medical testing that a being will be born with birth defects, it is not anyone else's religious beliefs that should dictate to us that we must bear the emotional/psychological/financial burden. Nor, I would say, should it be forced for others to bear that burden.

Almost no one in America would disagree with you on that. I know that I wouldn't. I think it is healthy babies being aborted that the majority of the pro-life folks object to.

I couldn't agree more, you have hit the nail on the head, (hope you are not too shocked!!). I don't think one necessarily has to be a card carrying member of pro-life to believe that healthy babies being aborted for no good reason is objectionable. Of course there are exceptions, rape, incest etc. In my previous life in the UK i worked for the Health Service, for a while as a technician in operating theatres. It was not uncommon to see terminations being performed on patients for the second, or even third time, sometimes on patients who were not yet twenty. They were effectively using abortion as a kind of birth control. This is clearly very very wrong, There is adequate birth control available to all, ignorance is no excuse.

And thus it is with reasonable people, we have room to address the problem and find a workable solution. Unfortunately, as anyone can see in the current USA, there is a very real swing to the right. It is a combination of things adding up to a whole lot of frustrated, stressed people. In the case in hand, however, too many are trying to force their view that there is only one national religion. These folks do not know their country's history nor the religious history of Europe influencing the necessary separation of church and state in the US that allowed us to form a union. Sorry, don't need to bore readers but is most frustrating as an American.