Hypothetical.
I’m not invested in the clinic protests one way or the other, since I don’t participate in them. I am however entirely uninterested in abortion-seekers having special freedom from protests that other groups (except polticians, I guess) don’t have. If it’s legal to throw disruptive protests inside a church, it should be legal to have disruptive protests outside an abortion clinic. Abortion is already far too easy and guilt-free a procedure.
So you’re in favor of inequality between men and women?
Is it legal to throw disruptive protests inside a church? I confess I’m hardly a legal scholar, let alone an American legal scholar. I would have thought a call to the police would end in such a disruptive person removed.
This is still a terrible argument. Unless Bricker is against considering a woman’s body her “sovereign territory” but for a man’s body counting as his, you can’t phrase his disagreement as a gender inequality issue.
Is it? Where in this country is this legal?
So your aim is to make millions of women feel guilty about abortions? And you expect us to enshrine this sanctimonious and condescending aim into law why exactly . . . ?
:dubious:
Bricker, I am curious of your opinion on free speech zones and this ruling. I notice you have been sidestepping this issue, but i would really like to have your opinion. In United States v. Grace (1983) the court ruled that protesting on the grounds of the supreme court is not protected by the first amendment because
OK. But somehow the parking lot and sidewalk in front of a abortion clinic is a public forum. Why, constitutionally, is there a difference?
I would also like your opinion on free speech zones and Presidential visits. I know that the rationale is security, but if I am willing to be searched and even shackled, do my free speech rights let me get closer than 35 feet to the president? Is there a constitutional buffer in this case and why is it different, or is it different, with women wanting to get an abortion?
But still, men have complete domain over their own bodies and women do not. That, at it’s very core, makes them unequal.
The fact that they are biologically different does not preclude the woman from equal rights protection.
I quite agree. So we’ll just say that neither have that sovereignty, and thereby treat both equally.
I don’t agree the law should treat either men’s or women’s bodies as sovereign entities.
That’s factually incorrect. A court can order a anal cavity search, a DNA test, or blood to be drawn, or even surgery to be performed on a man’s body.
Yup.
The whole notion of your body being a ‘sovereign entity’ is pretty revolting.
Revolting?
The first part doesn’t imply the second.
The woman seeking an abortion and the protester ‘harassing’ her (which, incidentally, I have zero reason to believe is particularly common) could both be wrong.
A court can order, is a pretty big caveat.
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.
They are good enough to keep them off of the property. This was about buffer zones applying to public sidewalks. Many clinics are in urban areas where they don’t have much in the way of property outside of the building.
It’s not ideal, but it’s hard to find locations that are near people who need the clinic’s services, have ample property to allow for discreet arrivals and departures, and where the landlord doesn’t balk at the proposed use (either because they’re anti-choice themselves or because they don’t want protests at their child’s school).
Many American cultural liberals think it should be. See the case in Russia with that feminist punk rock band.
Because your ignorance is your evidence? BTW, where is it legal in this country to throw disruptive protests inside a church?
How about dealing with the arguments that are actually being made, instead of some shit you heard on the teevee?