I know it's the sexy issue at the moment, but I'm going to give myself some room and move along with the completion of this recent series.
"Mass. abortion clinic buffer zones ruled illegal" by Peter Schworm and Zachary T. Sampson | Globe staff | Globe Correspondent June 26, 2014
The US Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that banned protesters within 35 feet of abortion clinics, ruling that the law infringed upon the First Amendment rights of antiabortion activists.
Unanimously?
The decision effectively overturns about 10 fixed-buffer-zone laws across the country, from San Francisco to Portland, Maine, but offers a framework for more limited restrictions around clinic demonstrations, legal experts said.
I wouldn't be too worried; it's not like anything is set in stone (or parchment, for that matter, not that anyone cares. Nine hits is all?).
“They’ve approved the idea of this kind of law, just not the mechanism,” said Jessica Silbey, a Suffolk University Law School professor. “It was too broad.”
I'm gouging to stop here and lay out my thoughts and views for a moment on this issue, my views, and priorities.
The first thing to be noted is the same people protesting this vicious decision would complain were it free-speech zones at political conventions or to pen up Occupy Wall Street kids. It's not a criticism per se, it is just an acknowledgement of that sides particular blind spot. Nor is it a criticism if that is your number one issue, all issues are important to someone, but the fanatical obsession with it seems strange to me. The shrill hysteria surrounding the issue is troubling to me.
Secondly, I view the flip-side religious zealots such as they are as unhelpful and controlled-opposition to certain extents. It's another divisive wedge, and the threat of violence adds to the narrative. Some of them might view me as a fraud, I'm nominally Catholic and all, but I will further elaborate on my views on the issue below.
Thirdly, yeah, I'm antiabortion, or pro-life, in the sense that there is so much taking of life. We are sold overpopulation by elites who want to allocate resources onto themselves. The whole "useless eaters" comment, and the sad fact that the whole abortion/woman's rights movement began as a plan to control the birthing of blacks in what was considered no big deal at the time. The whole idea of superiority and eugenics was being trumpeted, just about the time certain protocols had been adopted. And now they are raising Gaza.
At the same time, while not liking the practice I am accepting of it due to the majority of the state in which I live. It's called living by your principles to a certain extent; don't like it, get out there and change it. Am I getting in someone's face over it? No.
That gets me to the fourth and final point regarding the whole idea of abortion and birth control (the two seem to be getting conflated as a two-pronged pincer strategy of propaganda and distraction while the New World Order harmful to everyone is a advanced at lightning speed), when one thinks about the drone missile drops and wars waged in the name of liberating women, among other things. I know the argument would be the two things are completely different, but are they? The basis for each argument is dead children, right? One side says its inside, under the female entities control, and rightly so.
But why is the ability to take the creation of life and snuff it out so celebrated? Why are women's rights so often equated with abortion and the ability to serve and kill in they military? Anything you can do? Well, neither I nor any gay guy couple produce offspring. Women have a very special gift, and the casual way potential life is discussed disturbs me in these times of widespread death in all corners.
Now, they are horrible experiences and rapes and stuff and I don't want coat hangers going up there either. So my answer to you is I don't have a good answer for the issue right now, and as I have started to say the other decision to take life by governing war criminals is more disturbing. Isn't any life taken, even an adult, someone's child? Doesn't that rob that person of the ability to procreate? Life aborted, birth control applied. Where are the protests and zealous commitments?
Maybe you think that is mixing apples and oranges, and that's your choice.
In any event, back to the fruit bowl:
Supreme Court’s First Amendment hypocrisy
Oh, yeah, then there is that at all levels of government.
I suppose when it has bleed into the court $y$tem the country is effectively over. We are all at the whim of the power structure despite all the flowery words. They must like my writing and get a laugh from my pained frustrations.
Now if you don't mind, I have more important abortion stories to cover, most from overseas.
State lawmakers said they would act quickly to pass legislation to provide protections for women seeking abortions and counseling. It was unclear what form the legislation would take.
The high court ruled that the state law, enacted in 2007, imposed “serious burdens” on protesters who wish to speak with arriving patients.
“At each of the three Planned Parenthood clinics where petitioners attempt to counsel patients, the zones carve out a significant portion of the adjacent public sidewalks, pushing petitioners well back from the clinics’ entrances and driveways,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.
The law broadened a previously enacted floating buffer zone, which kept protesters 6 feet away from anyone who was within 18 feet of a clinic.
It was passed in response to the fatal shootings of two staff members at abortion clinics in Brookline in 1994.
Abortion opponents hailed the ruling as restoring their rights to free speech.
“The court recognized our First Amendment rights, and now I’ll have a chance to speak to people one-on-one,” said Eleanor McCullen, the lead petitioner in the case.
But the decision left supporters — who said the ruling overturned an effective measure that allowed patients and staff members to enter clinics without being harassed — vowing to find ways to keep the facilities safe.
Attorney General Martha Coakley, whose office defended the law in arguments before the court, said the decision left intact part of the law banning deliberate obstruction of clinic entrances.
“We will utilize all of the tools we have available to protect everyone from harassment, threats, and physical obstruction,” said Coakley, adding that her office’s Civil Rights Division was prepared to issue injunctions against “those who would threaten or harass.”
Martha Walz — president of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, which has health centers in Boston, Springfield, and Worcester that provide abortion services — said police officers had assured her they will enforce laws protecting clinics. Volunteers will also be available to escort patients and staff if necessary, she said.
“We will exhaust all options to protect the safety of patients,” Walz said.
Walz, a former state legislator and one of the lead sponsors of the 2007 measure, said the law transformed the sidewalks outside clinics into “a safe, peaceful environment.”
“The law worked,” she said.
Before, protesters could stand in the clinic doorway, shoulder to shoulder, forcing people to squeeze through. Walz recalled a visit when a protester screamed at her from just inches away.
“It was, to say the least, frightening,” Walz said. “That is what is of such concern to us. The court is essentially saying that kind of behavior may resume.”
McCullen, a Newton grandmother and the lead petitioner in the case, said she was thrilled by the unanimous ruling.
“It restores your faith in the country,” said McCullen, 77.
McCullen said the buffer zone has made it difficult for her to speak with people entering a clinic in Boston. She stands outside the clinic twice a week.
McCullen said that many visitors to the clinic are hesitant and that she and others have persuaded hundreds of women to forgo abortions.
“This is life and death,” she said. “This is about a little child.”
Mark Rienzi, lead counsel for McCullen and other activists who challenged the law, said the ruling “affirmed a critical freedom.”
Similarly, Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston, chairman of the US Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, called the law “an attack on prolife Americans’ freedom of speech’’ and said the bishops “welcome the court’s decision to overturn the law.”
When they heard the case in January, the justices indicated that the state needed to find a middle ground that would address safety concerns without violating First Amendment rights.
In the decision, it said that Massachusetts could model restrictions on a 1994 federal law that bans interfering with persons obtaining or providing reproductive health services.
Roger Evans, senior counsel for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said more flexible restrictions remain valid for now.
“What the court said is that if you create a space on public property where protesting is simply not allowed, that’s not going to withstand constitutional scrutiny,” he said.
State legislators said they would act quickly.
“We have to do something in order to provide protections for those folks who are using the clinics,” said House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, a Democrat from Winthrop.
This guy is apparently mired in scandal.
“We’re very concerned about the ruling,” said Senator William N. Brownsberger, a Belmont Democrat who chairs the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. “We’re going to work hard to craft an appropriate response.”
Brownsberger and Representative Christopher M. Markey, a Dartmouth Democrat and House vice chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said lawmakers will speak with police and clinic employees to learn what needs to be done.
“We’re still looking at it and making a determination of what to do,” Markey said.
Brookline police Lieutenant Philip Harrington said the department has supported the buffer zone, believing it has reduced the likelihood of physical confrontations. In light of the ruling, police will make “the necessary adjustments” to comply with the law, he said.
“Ultimately our goal is to strike a balance between keeping people safe, while allowing them to exercise their constitutional rights,” he said.
At Women’s Health Services in Brookline, Dr. Laurent Delli-Bovi said that without the buffer zone, patients will feel even more vulnerable.
“It doesn’t seem to me that First Amendment rights include being able to force someone into a conversation with you that they don’t want to have,” she said. “It’s a sad, bad decision.”
Delli-Bovi, who owns the health center, said she had worked with one of the victims of the 1994 shooting, a receptionist at Planned Parenthood.
That is what worries me most, another government-run psyop or false flag shooting to gin up the gun-grab again and focus the politics on those side issues again.
“That was devastating and particularly an eye-opener for people in Massachusetts,” she said. “People think that can’t happen here, and it did.”
On Commonwealth Avenue in Boston Thursday, one protester, Ray Neary, stood behind the thick yellow painted line that marks the buffer zone around Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.
When women entered the building, he said: “Give life a chance. Every child deserves a birth day.”
All we are saying.... is give peace a chance!
Neary, a retired educator from Medfield, said the Supreme Court ruling will help him continue his efforts.
“They try to cast us as different than who we really are,” said Neary. “We are peaceful.”
I'm suspicious of what I see in my agenda-pushing paper, yeah.
About 20 people protest at the Boston clinic on Saturdays, the busiest demonstrations, Neary said.
Jaime Dasque, 36, who lives near the Boston clinic, said she often hears the protesters chanting and singing and said they intimidate women.
“They make something that is already an emotional and horrific thing that is hard to choose to do, even harder,” she said.
We agree there.
--more--"
"No finger-pointing at AG Martha Coakley over ruling" by David Scharfenberg | Globe staff June 27, 2014
Defeat comes in many flavors, some far more bitter than others.
The state’s highest court handed Attorney General Martha Coakley the first of two high-profile legal setbacks this week, ruling Tuesday that she erred in keeping a repeal of the Massachusetts casino law off the November ballot.
Coakley got a lashing. Her gubernatorial foes piled on. Columnists were unkind.
See: Place Your Vote
On Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned a Massachusetts law creating buffer zones around the state’s abortion clinics. But the reaction, this time, was far more muted.
“This isn’t a loss for Martha Coakley; it’s a loss for women,” said opponent Donald Berwick.
What might have been a damaging narrative — losing two big decisions in a week — had fizzled. Coakley managed to turn a very bad week into something much more promising.
I'm tired of narratives promoted and illusions maintained and imagery sold. Sorry.
Coakley, at a press conference in her office, cast herself as the champion of a just cause. “We do this everyday,” she said. “We fight our battles — we win some, we don’t win them all — we are going to keep fighting.”
She vowed to work with the governor and the Legislature to come up with new protections for clinic-goers that meet legal muster. In a note to supporters, she said she would continue the fight as governor.
“Today’s decision just reminds us that our work is far from done, and it is imperative we elect someone with a track record of standing up for women’s rights and working to make our state a more safe and equal place for all,” she wrote.
Peter Ubertaccio, a political scientist at Stonehill College, said support for reproductive rights in Massachusetts blunted any political fallout from the court’s decision.
None of Coakley’s gubernatorial opponents, especially Democrats Steve Grossman and Berwick, wanted to get in a fight with her over abortion.
“I suspect at the end of the day, it’s a net positive,” Ubertaccio said of the week’s events, arguing that Democratic voters may have a more “visceral reaction” to the abortion fight than the casino imbroglio.
Indeed, just days after the gambling decision cast the political perils of Coakley’s day job in high relief, the Supreme Court tussle served as a reminder of its advantages.
That moment may be short-lived. The buffer zone story will probably fade in time, while the casino debate seems likely to consume much of the state’s political bandwidth in coming months.
But on Thursday, it was the buffer zone battle that dominated. And it was hard to find anyone saying that Coakley botched the case.
Martha Walz, who was an architect of the buffer zone law as a state legislator and now serves as president and chief executive of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, strongly defended Coakley’s handling of the case in an early afternoon conference call with reporters.
“I have no quarrel or concern with how the attorney general and her team have handled this case,” she said. “Martha Coakley has been a tremendous champion for women’s access to health care. She’s been a tremendous champion for the buffer zone law.”
Walz also heads the organization’s political arm, which endorsed Coakley for governor last month. And she stood alongside the attorney general at her press conference later in the day.
Legal analysts said that despite the Supreme Court’s unanimous rebuke, there was little to fault in Coakley’s handling of the case. The 9-to-0 decision, they said, only underscored the long odds she faced.
“It was a bad law,” said Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet. “It would be astonishing if any lawyer won this case.”
Tushnet credited the Massachusetts attorney general’s office with winning a small tactical victory, even in defeat. A majority of the justices, he noted, found that the law did not discriminate against antiabortion protesters for the content of their speech. Instead, the justices found, it impinged on the rights of everyone outside the clinics, whatever their views.
Tushnet said the finding, that the buffer zone law was “content-neutral,” could provide an opening for new, more limited measures designed to protect clinic-goers and employees.
Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo both said Thursday that they would look at legislative remedies, though it was unclear what they might do. Small floating buffer zones, surrounding patients, are a possibility. The Legislature could also beef up laws against harassment and obstruction.
Nancy Gertner, a former US District Court judge and now a law professor at Harvard University, said she is not surprised that the two unanimous decisions did not produce a simple “bad week for Coakley” narrative.
“You can’t begrudge the attorney general of the state defending a statute that supports the right to choose,” she said.
The prochoice position is not only popular in Massachusetts, she said, it’s been enshrined in the law for years. The casino debate, she said, is much newer and much more complicated.
“It’s just not the same,” she said. “And you shouldn’t put two defeats in the same box.”
--more--"
"Supreme Court rulings jolt women’s groups into action; Candidates’ stances on issues scrutinized" by Akilah Johnson | Globe Staff July 07, 2014
Two recent Supreme Court cases — striking down Massachusetts’ abortion clinic buffer zone law and the federal requirement that employers cover contraception — have energized Massachusetts voters, politicians, and women’s organizations around issues of women’s health.
Hundreds have rushed to volunteer at the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, which supports abortion rights. At the same time, Anne Fox, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, which opposes abortion rights, said her thank you notes to large donors have tripled. But for the most part, passions are crystallizing into a movement of women, both Democratic and Republican in a state that overwhelmingly supports abortion rights, who see the rulings as an encroachment.
Ah, yes, the monolithic women of Massachusetts.
There are legislative seats open, gubernatorial candidates running for office, and a host of constitutional officers on the ballot come November, and some voters say they will be paying more attention to where candidates stand on women’s health issues.
Forget wars, the Wall Street looting, the rank rot of government and institutions at all levels, the poisoning of our minds and bodies through air, soil, water, food, and all the other things that affect women as well as the rest of us, regardless of color or sexual preference, now the campaign in the fall is going to be over abortion and birth control.
Good gravy!
I was going to abort the post there, so this extended pregnancy is just for you:
Already a coalition of five prominent women’s groups — Emily’s List, Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Women’s Campaign Fund, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, and MassNOW — have begun to rally.
They threw their collective support behind a plan by Attorney General Martha Coakley to — if elected governor — require companies contracting with the state to offer employees insurance that covers contraception “no matter the views of their employer.”
May have to vote for her by default in the primary to block former AIPAC head Grossman. That's Massachusetts politics.
****************
Almost immediately, most candidates for statewide offices, save for two gubernatorial candidates who oppose abortion rights, began reaching out to women, stressing that women’s health concerns are a priority.
Don Berwick and state Treasurer Steve Grossman — like Coakley, Democratic candidates for governor — used phrases like “a sad day” and “deeply disappointed” when describing the decision striking down the state’s buffer zones. And Evan Falchuk, independent candidate for governor, called the decision on contraception “a disturbing precedent.”
At a “Women for Charlie” event, Karyn Polito, a Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, referring to herself and running mate, Charlie Baker, said the issue helps their ticket “define who we are, that we fully embrace a woman’s right to access her health care and choose what is right for herself.”
Related: Baker Faces Backlash For Picking Polito
Why? How can he have been too conservative last time when he picked a gay guy to run with? What is with the shifting narratives over the years?
Ingrid Calder was inside Joe’s American Bar & Grill on the Boston waterfront that night to hear what Baker and Polito had to say on the topic of women’s health.
The 42-year-old Beacon Hill resident had already made up her mind to support Baker, but she still wanted to hear his stance. Calder said she was baffled by the buffer zone decision and wants her vote to go to someone who supports women’s rights.
“This is a huge deal,” she said....
She was pleased to hear Polito say their ticket did — although some women’s groups do not consider the Baker-Polito ticket fully in favor of abortion rights for, among other reasons, not supporting comprehensive sex education.
Why do you have to keep pushing? Makes one think there is more to the affair than abortion rights.
Martha Walz, president of the local branch of Planned Parenthood, said helping to draft state legislation that provides new protections for clinic-goers has become a top priority.
“I feel like I’m in a way-back machine,” she said. “The Supreme Court made it harder for women to get health care. It’s been nearly 100 years, and we’re still fighting about birth control.”
After eight years of blogging I feel like nothing has changed except for the worse.
That thought is beyond understanding, said City Councilor Ayanna Pressley of Boston, who has worked to develop comprehensive sex education for city public schools and strengthened pathways to graduation for pregnant and parenting teens.
“It’s stunning that in 2014 we’re having this type of debate and having to strategize on the city, state, and federal level with elected officials and advocates kind of scrambling to mitigate the impact of this and figure out how to reverse this course,” Pressley said.
Megan Amundson, director of NARAL’s Massachusetts chapter, said the time has come for a statewide movement, which includes expanding the “very slim prochoice majority” in the Massachusetts House of Representatives.
“It’s really underappreciated. We’re on the verge of losing it every election cycle,” Amundson said.
Sorry, honey.
And although much of the energy has been exhibited by those who feel their rights have been trampled by the Supreme Court, there is also evidence that the antiabortion camp has been galvanized too, seeing an increase in fund-raising....
--more--"
Let the SOCIAL WARS that will decide the CAMPAIGN BEGIN!
"Hundreds rally to support women’s rights" by Jeremy C. Fox | Globe Correspondent July 09, 2014
Governor Deval Patrick told an energized crowd rallying in support of access to contraception and abortion Tuesday to not be discouraged by recent US Supreme Court rulings.
“You’ve got a Legislature, legislative leadership, and a governor who want to make this right,” Patrick told hundreds assembled at City Hall Plaza. “Come make a claim on your government and tell your stories, above all, because we have to build the record that will sustain the legislation I believe we can move and get enacted before the session ends at the end of this month.”
Cheers rose from the plaza, where the crowd had gathered to voice outrage at recent rulings that struck down a Massachusetts law banning protesters within 35 feet of abortion clinics and that approved of a religious exemption to the federal requirement that employers cover contraception in insurance plans.
Patrick and state Attorney General Martha Coakley, who is seeking the Democratic nomination to succeed him, have called for new legislation to crack down on harassment and obstruction outside abortion clinics.
Speaking among dozens of elected officials and candidates at the Supreme Rally for Women’s Equality, which was organized by NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts, and a host of other groups, the state’s first African-American governor compared the rulings to earlier decisions from the nation’s highest court.
For some reason, those two words don't seem to go together with me. I must be some sort of gender supremacist, huh?
“There was a time when the Supreme Court said that there weren’t any rights for me that white people needed to acknowledge or care about,” Patrick said. “Once upon a time, it was the law of the land that same-sex couples couldn’t marry, in Massachusetts or a whole [lot] of other places.”
He's making it a gay and race thing now?
Please just go away, governor. I'd rather have Grossman; at least the sheep's clothing is off him.
Coakley told the crowd of women and men, “Let’s just not get angry — let’s get even.” She said the decisions are among many obstacles impeding women’s efforts to achieve full equality with men.
Oh my, that is incitement and terrorist Tea Party talk!
“For women, it’s always been a little bit harder, and what the Supreme Court did last week certainly makes it a little bit harder still,” she said.
You know.... the endless victimization to grind a political ax gets tiresome. Maybe that's sexist of me to say it, but it also applies to Zionist usurpers so what you bitchin' 'bout?
Earlier Tuesday, the anti-abortion group Massachusetts Citizens for Life called on state legislators not to heed the urging of Patrick and Coakley, and called out Coakley for her support of the previous buffer zone law.
“Please think carefully as to whether or not the latest version will pass constitutional muster,” it said. “Remember, she convinced you before that her bill would do so, and she was dead wrong.”
Outside City Hall, though, among the men and women, gay and straight, of many ages, ethnic backgrounds, and communities, there appeared to be a unified opposition to any government action that would inhibit a woman’s options.
It's everyone, right.
Judy Otto was among a group of about 50 Lexington residents who traveled to the rally on a bus.
Bused in for the protest, huh? The hallark of controlled-opposition agenda-pushers, especially when promoted in glowing terms by the pre$$.
She said she recalled the days before the Supreme Court’s1973 decision in Roe v. Wade gave women access to legal abortions....
Otto, 70, said, “We weren’t even supposed to use contraceptives back then, and now we can’t get them from some employers — but you can get Viagra.”
So this is about penis envy and women's hate after all, huh?
--more--"
Also see:
Antiabortion activists march on Common
Abortion battle spills across line at Boston clinic
At its height, the protest drew about 70 people — three times more than the average Saturday morning crowd, typically the largest gathering of the week
Okay, I see in the center of town the antiwar pathetics still out there on Saturdays, all four of them. I wanna go by and say, "Hey, back in Iraq now, huh? At least Obama is ending those wars."
God bless 'em, but how futile.
What is truly needed is a revolt among the blackmailed and compromise political cla$$ that is serving their monied ma$ters, and I don't see that in sight anytime soon in AmeriKa.
Meanwhile, I'm wondering when and where the staged and scripted shooting by some nut outside a clinic up here is being planned.
With no buffer, patients pressed at Planned Parenthood
The First Amendment, loved and loathed
Supreme Court is naive on buffer zones
After SCOTUS buffer zone ruling, state must find new ways to protect patients
Coakley, Patrick press for new abortion clinic protections
Related:
This Blog No Longer a Lobby Hobby
Salem ends Gordon College’s use of town hall
I say we burn the f***er at the stake.
Gay marriage pushing toward high court
Supreme Court clears ban on gay conversion therapy
Interesting how the abortion and birth control stuff is getting mixed in with the gay stuff, although I suppose it is all about sex and pushing certain agendas -- or conflating them more than anything, if for no other reason than to cause confusion in people regarding their own issues of identity and forgetting about all the impactful ills coming from the outside (posing as friendly liberators of all things).
In other action Monday:
■ The Supreme Court said it will not hear a challenge to California’s first-in-the-nation mandate requiring fuel producers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
■ The justices said lawsuits by victims’ families and survivors of the Sept. 11 attacks can proceed, but without relatives of Osama bin Laden and businesses that allegedly supported Al Qaeda before the terrorist attacks as defendants."
Why is the SUPREME COURT PROTECTING bin Laden and 9/11 business connections regarding that steaming stinker of a cover story? Even the limited hangouts are censored!!
