You missed it.
But that is legal, so it’s fine. 
Now it is simple, in P&E and GD, we now have a 100% solid unassailable argument-it is legal, so it’s okay, moral and ethical. 
Where was it?
I see you edited your post.
Still…
Where was it?
Sure. Alabama did so last month, under certain circumstances.
Section 4. (a) Except as proveded in subsection (b), no person shall engage in or cause any of the following practices to be performed upon a minor if the practice is performed for the purpose of attempting to alter the appearance of or affirm the minor’s perception of his or her gender or sex, if that appearance or perception is inconsistent with the minor’s sex as defined in this act:
[…]
(4) Performing surgeries that sterilize, including castration, vasectomy, hysterectomy, oophorectomy, orchiectomy, and penectomy.
[…]
(c) A violation of this section is a Class C felony.
~Max
I mean, when John Lewis led the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge on “Bloody Sunday”, it absolutely “annoyed people” who had nothing to do with the situation as they lost the use of the bridge for regular traffic.
The standard for reasonable protest cannot be “as long as it doesn’t annoy people you aren’t directly protesting against.” I do think reasonable protest has limits–for example any burning, looting, breaking of things, making it so people can’t leave their homes, occupying an area for days and what have you so people can’t make use of the area. But just simple protest outside of a home feels well inside the bounds of reasonable dissent.
In my experience people who can not conceive (heh heh) of a way to impregnate a woman whose legs are closed lack imagination.
That law is limited to minors.
Yes. Well technically it applies to anyone under 19, but it’s not an across-the-board ban on hysterectomies. I don’t believe any state has attempted such a thing. Perhaps female genital mutilation.
~Max
I agree with you annoying people should be OK.
Where I’m on the fence is the judge thing. Yes, Alito is a very political judge. But wasn’t the judge, who sent John Lewis to Parchman for going in a white bathroom, political? Did civil rights leaders then protest in front of the judge’s house? Not that I recall, but correct me if wrong.
I think it probably should be legal to protest in front of a judge’s house. But I don’t like it.
I have no idea if a random judge involved in enforcing segregation was protested–judges have been protested throughout America’s history. I definitely am more reserved in where I think “appropriate” protest of a judge sits versus other political officials, but I don’t agree with the premise some in this thread have put forward that it is never okay to protest a judge at their home, or that doing so puts your behavior on a moral equivalency to the behavior of Westboro Baptist Church.
A judge performing a functionary judicial role in line with the norms of his profession at the district level and getting protested at his home over it, would sit a lot differently to me than a Supreme Court justice engaging in politics. Supreme Court justices are allowed to be partisan creatures–they always have been, but it is the highest court and no one is appointed to it against their will. They are all relatively involved in various partisan activities, they are more than fair game for the kind of treatment that say, Chuck Schumer gets–who mentioned recently that he has people protested outside of his house in New York 3 or 4 times a week and has for years. He just doesn’t cry about it like the far right media is crying about some people holding signs in front of Alito and Kavanaugh’s houses.
I think we’re all familiar with the “It’s fine to protest, but not like that…no, not like that either…nor that…” argument, currently more common on the right and often continued until basically the only “acceptable” form of protest is one that doesn’t bother anyone and is completely ineffective and, preferably, unnoticeable at all.
“Annoying” people is entirely the point of protests. Certainly violence and threats of violence are inexcusable, but that’s not what’s happening here.
Thinking that some protests are disrupting the lives of the wrong people is not the same as thinking that all protests, no matter how small, are too annoying.
Directly protesting someone who is doing something you consider wrong is pretty much the definition of acceptable. As you say, if you think that that is unacceptable there pretty much isn’t any protest you would find acceptable.
But people also defend counterproductive protests as raising awareness through disruption. For instance, the environmental protests in Germany that blocked streets. I am only describing what they were protesting because everyone is aware of it. There isn’t any person on the planet who isn’t aware of environmental issues, so there is no awareness to be raised. And the protests burned gas by stopping traffic.
Obviously there are grey areas in between, but just because a protest is annoying doesn’t mean that it is worthwhile.
You can protest all you want. As long as you do it at home, with the lights off and the curtains closed.
Oh I agree. The Extinction Rebellion lot are masters of the counterproductive protest. If you are worried about climate change, maybe blocking public transport systems isn’t the best approach?
People donate healthy kidneys, bone marrow, and pieces of their liver to people in need all the time, which suggests this is medical ethics.
These are examples where the procedure is done to address a serious or life-saving medical need. I would have to assume that if a doctor removed someone’s kidney just because someone asked rather than from a true medical need, some kind of charges would be filed against the doctor. There might not be a specific law that says “you can’t remove a healthy organ for no reason”, but there are laws against “gross negligence” or similar that would probably be used against such a doctor.
I asked my Dr once if she could remove my uterus as it’s no longer functional and it would remove the risk of cancer. She said it wouldn’t be covered, but I suppose if I paid, it would be feasible
Some states are looking at more drastic provisions such as saving a fetus over the life of a woman. Abortion foes push to narrow ‘life of mother’ exceptions
The GOP is going to go after whatever gets them re/elected, already seeing it. Was it Missouri or Kansas that a governor was monitoring womens menstrual cycles if they used a government funded clinic for well women care? Just the beginning…
Laura Ingraham and guests were aghast that baby formula was being sent to immigrants at the border, in US detention centers. Certainly there’s an immigration law GOP can tackle to prevent that from happening?
This may be of interest; Clarence Thomas speaks publicly, calling the leak “an infidelity” that undermines the institution. I’ll refrain from further comment for now.
When it comes to peaceful protests outside of the homes of SC Justices, my mind goes back to how a particular cohort of Americans lost their fucking minds when a black man ‘took a knee’ at a few football games.
So there’s that.