# Abortion clinic "Buffer zones" in Massachusetts not legal, says unanimous SCOTUS **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 26, 2014, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698 "2014-06-26T14:58:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/461 "2014-06-30T18:33:55Z")
Know what? I’m pretty sure there are abortions even under Taliban rule, just like there were before \*Roe \*in the US (do the Pashtun even \*have \*coathangers?). The debate isn’t about \*banning \*abortion; that claim is naïve at best. It’s about how safe they’re allowed to be. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/462 "2014-06-30T18:37:10Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Purely out of interest - is this the same group of people you’re talking about twenty-some years ago and today? Er…kinda. Both then, and now, we’re talking about Knights of Columbus. Individuals have gotten too old to stand outside clinics and pray the rosary (which is all we do, by the way; we don’t initiate conversations with the clinic’s clientele) or have passed away, and younger members have joined and taken their places. So there are some faces still there from 20 years ago, but also some new ones. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/463 "2014-06-30T18:38:15Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Assuming the exchange occured as reported, it strikes me as the most plausible interpretation. > > The alternatives are that the person was admitting that they are only interested in yelling at or shaming women, not in whether abortions are performed or not, which seems unlikely; or that the person is a simpleton. I agree: assuming the exchange took place as reported, that’s the most plausible explanation. ---
**Author:** ![joyfool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@joyfool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joyfool)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/464 "2014-06-30T18:40:29Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I repeat. > > I repeat. He. Will. Never. Answer. You. Just saying. (Unless, of course, he decides to now because he’s been shamed into it. Seeing as how he’s so big on shame, that is. But perhaps that’s reserved solely for women?) > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Annie aside, that doesn’t sound too far-fetched to me. Agreed, in my experience as well. Most abortion protesters don’t politely stay back away from the path of egress, calmly and intelligently discuss their positions only with those interested, hand out non scare-tactic literature to passerbys or leave a situation alone immediately upon request. Wherever _those_ types are, I’ve yet to encounter them. Maybe **Bricker** could point us to examples of some? If **Annie’s** experience runs so contrary to his own, surely there’ll be no doubt that’d be an easy find. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/465 "2014-06-30T18:52:07Z")
Well, I suppose it’s possible an abortion protester _might_ have a stirring Sorkinesque speech in them, but more likely when put on the spot by someone confronting them (counter-confronting, one might say) won’t be able to shift gears fast enough to deliver it. That’s true for a lot of people, though, so when someone has the perfect zinger comeback, it’s notable for its rarity. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/466 "2014-06-30T18:59:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Er…kinda. > > Both then, and now, we’re talking about Knights of Columbus. > > Individuals have gotten too old to stand outside clinics and pray the rosary (which is all we do, by the way; we don’t initiate conversations with the clinic’s clientele) or have passed away, and younger members have joined and taken their places. So there are some faces still there from 20 years ago, but also some new ones. A grandfather’s axe sort of situation? Fair enough. Thank you for answering. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/467 "2014-06-30T20:42:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, in every single one of Annie’s encounters with abortion protesters, they are invariably depicted as unable to form any sort of coherent argument or rational sequence of ideas. My experience is that most of them are idiots, but a very small minority have been articulate and polite. One guy stomped around, spitting on people, and cursing them cruelly. “Looks like that fat broad is goin’ to HELL!” But…another guy, very quietly, apologized for the behavior of the first guy, and said, “All Christians aren’t like him.” ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/468 "2014-06-30T22:00:13Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > I think it’s immoral to harass women to prevent them from getting legal abortions. > > People shouldn’t have the right to harass others. There’s a difficult-to-draw fuzzy line here, between protesting and harassing. I’m against the harassment, not valid protest. You are aware that the SCOTUS agrees with you, right? The decision being discussed here specifically said that it only addressed “protests” and that already-existing statutes on intimidation and harassment were unaffected ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/469 "2014-06-30T22:53:22Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Perhaps even better would be to write “cursing and screaming at people entering a market where many things are sold, including slaves, without knowing what business the people are there to transact.” What about cursing and screaming outside a store that sells furs coats among other things? [http://globalnews.ca/video/1068251/anti-fur-activists-protest-yaletown-clothing-store](http://globalnews.ca/video/1068251/anti-fur-activists-protest-yaletown-clothing-store) > [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Wait, what? > > Are you comparing ‘having an abortion’ to ‘having a funeral’? > > Funerals are supposed to be respectful and solemn occasions that honour the deceased and their relatives, protests of any kind are inappropriate and shouldn’t be allowed. An abortion clinic is not a grave site. > [@Shakes](#): > > I’m not moving the goal posts. You’re making bull shit comparisons between signing a meaningless piece of paper to abortion rights. > [@Shakes](#): > > And when was the last draft? And do you honestly think that this law isn’t in its death throes now that women can fight on the battle field? > > In order to be subjugated to that law, you first have to commit a crime. > > Getting pregnant isn’t a crime. Special pleadings on both sides of this debate. Or is it true scottsman? You can learn a lot About logical fallacies reading an abortion thread if only there was a play by play announcer like they have for the world cup. > [@Shakes](#): > > I think of a woman’s ovaries as a sovereign country. Wow! > [@Shakes](#): > > LOL. if men could get pregnant, do you really think the subject of abortion would even _be_ a debate? Well, our history would be different but if some mutagen was released tomorrow to make every man grow a uterus, I suspect that abortion would still be a debate. Its not about persecuting women, no matter how persecuted some women may feel. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Personally, I doubt it very much, at least to the same extent. Well, sure not to the same extent. Just like the Republicans wouldn’t be quite a nucking futz if there was a white man wasn’t in the white house, but they would still try to cut taxes for the rich and cut aid for the poor. > [@Shakes](#): > > So you’re in favor of inequality between men and women? YES! That’s exactly what he’s saying. :smack: > [@Shakes](#): > > Yes, and both men and women are subjugated to that law. So they’re equal. Give me an example wherein a man is subjugated to a law but a woman is not. Give me an example where a man COULD reasonably be subjugated to a law where a woman is not? If the draft and rape can be handwaved away then I’m at a loss as to what would conceivably be acceptable to you. ETA: I think picketing an abortion clinic is a pretty low thing. You’re just making yourself feel self righteous at the expense of people who are between a rock and a hard place. If you want to go there with offers to adopt children like bricker’s friend, then fine, otherwise, you’re just there to make yourself feel holy and look down on some sluts that got themselves knocked up? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/470 "2014-06-30T23:00:17Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Pardon, is this where we nominate stuff for the **Nitpicker Hall of Fame**? So you don’t think there is a substantive difference between sexual assault and rape? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/471 "2014-06-30T23:50:27Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So you don’t think there is a substantive difference between sexual assault and rape? It’s a subtle kind of difference, the difference between a set and one of its subsets. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/472 "2014-07-01T00:45:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Women are [significantly more likely](http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx) to call themselves pro-choice than men. So **Hector’s** wrong about that. I thought his claim was that women were just as likely to be pro-life as men. The “life begins at conception” crowd is a minority in almost all demographics; same for the “abortion should always be illegal” crowd but it doesn’t seem to tilt dramatically towards men in any event. > [@](#): > > A question for **Hector** (and **Bricker** too, if he likes) – do you put value on a woman’s right to privacy with regards to her medical decisions? For example, if your side was in charge and made the laws, and a woman and her doctor made the decision that an abortion was medically necessary (but they do not publicize _why_), should the law get involved? At what point, and in what form, should the government be involved when a woman and her doctor make a decision that might involve abortion? Take euthanasia. People might think something like that could justify two doctors making a public disclosure of the circumstances of the euthanasia with redacted names to protect privacy. > [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > **iiandyiii** If there’s going to be abortions involved I’d want two doctors involved certifying that the decision was medically necessary, and publicly explaining their reasons. Why not just add a $1000 sin tax to it. Is there some point at which we are making first trimester abortions so onerous that the right has been overly burdened (I assume you are against first trimester abortions)? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So if a woman needs an abortion, doctor-patient confidentiality no longer applies? YOU can maintain anonymity. Doctors have to report all sorts of stuff from infectious diseases to suspected abuse. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/473 "2014-07-01T00:57:58Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Give me an example where a man COULD reasonably be subjugated to a law where a woman is not? If the draft and rape can be handwaved away then I’m at a loss as to what would conceivably be acceptable to you. The draft isn’t going to happen. The draft _hasn’t_ happened in over forty years. Abortion, however, happens on a daily basis and effects thousands of women’s lives. Do you really think these two things are even in the same ballpark? And women CAN be charged with rape. Trying to make the argument that women can’t rape a man with her own penis, therefore she is not subjugated to the same laws as a man is crazy talk. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/474 "2014-07-01T01:12:05Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > I presume you’ll stop asking for tax dollars then, right? Because if you’re going to argue that I get to pay thousands of dollars in taxes but I don’t get to vote, you may want to find another country other than one founded on the principle of no taxation without representation. Plenty of people who pay taxes cannot vote. Resident aliens pay taxes but cannot vote. People here on work visas pay taxes but cannot vote. Felons pay taxes but cannot vote. Taxation without representation didn’t really link taxes and the vote at the individual level. > [@Marley23](#): > > I notice a total lack of “because murder is wrong” here. And even worse, you’re wrong about these effectiveness of these tactics. There are very few doctors who still do late-term abortions for fear of murderous pro-lifers. There was that Kermit Gosnell fellow. There are 11,000 late term abortions (abortions in the 21st week or after) every year. We have previously seen people say that rape abortions were not “rare” because there are 1000 of them every year. So in that context, can we say that late term abortions are fairly common? Why not just condemn late term abortions absent medical necessity? That way we can defend the 98.5% of abortions that occur before the 20th week (and we can certainly defend the 85% of abortions that occur in the first trimester. Just a few charts: [![](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qjo1vd0Ezcs/Tq1036ZlwLI/AAAAAAAAAqk/j5K7VyHx7FI/s1600/fetaldevelopment-copy.jpg) ](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qjo1vd0Ezcs/Tq1036ZlwLI/AAAAAAAAAqk/j5K7VyHx7FI/s1600/fetaldevelopment-copy.jpg) [![](http://ehealthwall.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/fetal-development-week-by-week-8-40.jpg) ](http://ehealthwall.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/fetal-development-week-by-week-8-40.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/475 "2014-07-01T01:30:46Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Know what? I’m pretty sure there are abortions even under Taliban rule, just like there were before \*Roe \*in the US (do the Pashtun even \*have \*coathangers?). > > The debate isn’t about \*banning \*abortion; that claim is naïve at best. It’s about how safe they’re allowed to be. If you outlaw abortions, then only outlaws will have abortions 😛 > [@Trinopus](#): > > My experience is that most of them are idiots, but a very small minority have been articulate and polite. > > One guy stomped around, spitting on people, and cursing them cruelly. “Looks like that fat broad is goin’ to HELL!” > > But…another guy, very quietly, apologized for the behavior of the first guy, and said, “All Christians aren’t like him.” The second guy could have left out the word “All” Just saying you’re a Christian, doesn’t make it so. > [@Trinopus](#): > > It’s a subtle kind of difference, the difference between a set and one of its subsets. Its subtle like the difference between carbon and diamonds. > [@Shakes](#): > > The draft isn’t going to happen. The draft _hasn’t_ happened in over forty years. Abortion, however, happens on a daily basis and effects thousands of women’s lives. Do you really think these two things are even in the same ballpark? Yes. It really doesn’t help your side of the argument to constantly accuse the other side of being solely driven by misogyny. Its not. Its not solely driven by religion either. If you can’t deal with their arguments without resorting to name calling, maybe you should leave the argument to people who don’t get as emotional about it because you’re not going to convince anyone that your’re right and you might convince some people you are wrong. > [@](#): > > And women CAN be charged with rape. Trying to make the argument that women can’t rape a man with her own penis, therefore she is not subjugated to the same laws as a man is crazy talk. Apparently, in some states they can’t. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/476 "2014-07-01T01:36:07Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Yes. It really doesn’t help your side of the argument to constantly accuse the other side of being solely driven by misogyny. Its not. Its not solely driven by religion either. If you can’t deal with their arguments without resorting to name calling, maybe you should leave the argument to people who don’t get as emotional about it because you’re not going to convince anyone that your’re right and you might convince some people you are wrong. Did you mean to quote someone else because this doesn’t address my post at all. > [@](#): > > Apparently, in some states they can’t. One freak’n state! Idaho! That one outlier doesn’t exactly breakdown my axiom. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/477 "2014-07-01T01:40:01Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > There are 11,000 late term abortions (abortions in the 21st week or after) every year. We have previously seen people say that rape abortions were not “rare” because there are 1000 of them every year. So in that context, can we say that late term abortions are fairly common? > > Why not just condemn late term abortions absent medical necessity? That way we can defend the 98.5% of abortions that occur before the 20th week (and we can certainly defend the 85% of abortions that occur in the first trimester. Is there any indication that any percentage of these late term abortions a result of anything \*besides \*medical necessity ? Reality is illogical, of course, but ISTM that if you (theoretical you, not \*you \*you) wind up preggers and choose not to be, there’s precious little point in waiting for months on end before evicting the little squatter. I’ll generously grant, say, two-three months (8-12 weeks) delay for the “noticing you’re actually pregnant” part since some women, particularly young ones, can be slow on the uptake or simply ill-educated on what it means when you haven’t gotten your period in a while (“but I can’t be, I douched with Coke and everything !”); and I’ll also posit say a full month of agonizing over the decision, bringing us to 4 months or 20 weeks (i.e. when the overwhelming majority of abortions do take place, proving I’m not too wrong)… But beyond that - and bullshit mandatory waiting periods & similar delays caused by deliberate speed bumps put in the path of elective abortions - there doesn’t seem to me to be any sensible reason to wait \*five \*months, or over half the pregnancy, before deciding that nope, bad idea, back to the drawing board. Based on this, and admittedly nothing but this since I haven’t been able to find any actual data on the subject, I’m led to assume that those 5 remaining percent are most likely women who did in fact want to go the whole nine [del]yards[/del]months but hit a major snag. If you have any reason to assume or assert otherwise, I’d be happy to hear about it. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/478 "2014-07-01T05:06:45Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > Did you mean to quote someone else because this doesn’t address my post at all. No it was directed at your posts. Your arguments have been teetering between, “pro-lifers are misogynistic men” to “we never force men to do anything” It doesn’t help your argument to say stuff that is only going to get a few nods from the folks ware waaaay over on your side. > [@](#): > > One freak’n state! Idaho! That one outlier doesn’t exactly breakdown my axiom. Axioms aren’t supposed to have exceptions and I don’t know that Idaho is the only state that has this sort of law, do you know that for a fact? I just think you would be better off dropping the notion that the law only places extra burdens on women and none on men or the notion that you can dismiss all the pro-life arguments because they are all woman haters. The arguments do not lend themselves to clear conclusions otherwise this wouldn’t be such a controversy. You don’t need Jesus to think abortions are wrong. I think the original Hippocratic Oath (who came before Jesus) included a prohibition against providing abortions. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/479 "2014-07-01T05:14:40Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Is there any indication that any percentage of these late term abortions a result of anything \*besides \*medical necessity ? > > Reality is illogical, of course, but ISTM that if you (theoretical you, not \*you \*you) wind up preggers and choose not to be, there’s precious little point in waiting for months on end before evicting the little squatter. I’ll generously grant, say, two-three months (8-12 weeks) delay for the “noticing you’re actually pregnant” part since some women, particularly young ones, can be slow on the uptake or simply ill-educated on what it means when you haven’t gotten your period in a while (“but I can’t be, I douched with Coke and everything !”); and I’ll also posit say a full month of agonizing over the decision, bringing us to 4 months or 20 weeks (i.e. when the overwhelming majority of abortions do take place, proving I’m not too wrong)… > > But beyond that - and bullshit mandatory waiting periods & similar delays caused by deliberate speed bumps put in the path of elective abortions - there doesn’t seem to me to be any sensible reason to wait \*five \*months, or over half the pregnancy, before deciding that nope, bad idea, back to the drawing board. > > Based on this, and admittedly nothing but this since I haven’t been able to find any actual data on the subject, I’m led to assume that those 5 remaining percent are most likely women who did in fact want to go the whole nine [del]yards[/del]months but hit a major snag. > > If you have any reason to assume or assert otherwise, I’d be happy to hear about it. The biggest reason appears to be failure to recognize the pregnancy: > **[Late termination of pregnancy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion#Reasons)** > > Late termination of pregnancy, also referred to politically as third trimester abortion, describes the termination of pregnancy by inducing labor during a late stage of gestation. In this context, late is not precisely defined, and different medical publications use varying gestational age thresholds. As of 2015, in the United States, more than 90% of abortions occur before the 13th week, 1.3% take place after the 21st week, and less than 1% occur after 24 weeks. > Reasons for late terminations... (Note: this is based on a Guttmacher survey of abortions after the 16th week, not the 20th week) medical necessity doesn’t seem to be a really big reason. [http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0543.htm](http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0543.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698/480 "2014-07-01T05:59:26Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > No it was directed at your posts. Your arguments have been teetering between, “pro-lifers are misogynistic men” to “we never force men to do anything” > > It doesn’t help your argument to say stuff that is only going to get a few nods from the folks ware waaaay over on your side. > > Axioms aren’t supposed to have exceptions and I don’t know that Idaho is the only state that has this sort of law, do you know that for a fact? > > I just think you would be better off dropping the notion that the law only places extra burdens on women and none on men or the notion that you can dismiss all the pro-life arguments because they are all woman haters. > > The arguments do not lend themselves to clear conclusions otherwise this wouldn’t be such a controversy. You don’t need Jesus to think abortions are wrong. I think the original Hippocratic Oath (who came before Jesus) included a prohibition against providing abortions. I don’t have time to rebut this right now but you’re talking nonsense. If this thread is still alive when I get some time off, I’ll explain why. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-buffer-zones-in-massachusetts-not-legal-says-unanimous-scotus/691698.md?page=25)