Poster 1 People are so saddened by the idea of abortions as to want to try to persuade as many women as possible not to have abortions as a personal choice. (by protesting outside clinics)
Poster 2 I understand the sentiment. But I fear that the overwhelming majority of women already share the sentiment, and protesters lining the street don’t do much besides burdening an already sad and difficult decision with social pressure and stigma.
**Poster 3: **
This exactly. I’m prochoice but generally personally anti abortion. A few months ago, I had a pregnancy scare, so I started researching my options available here locally. We have one clinic in our city that does abortions, so I started gathering information in case I needed to do that. I never thought I’d get an abortion, but faced with the possibility of being pregnant right now, I knew this was not the time for me to bring a child into the world. I could rationalize and deal with the emotions of getting the abortion itself, but you know what literally made me sick to my stomach with nervousness?
The protesters.
I know protesters line up outside that clinic every single day. Thinking about facing them literally reduced me to tears. And frankly, I don’t know why-- I disagree with their strong arm tactics, their religion, their nonsense, but for whatever reason, THEY were what made me cry when thinking about this situation. Imagining getting screamed at, condescending, whatever else they do, was just awful.
Fortunately, I was fine and didn’t need to do anything, but just facing that possibility made me hate those morons who line up outside those clinics more than I ever have. I can’t imagine how the women who face them to go get services actually feel.
So, I think we can conclude that protestors lining the clinic are affective. They might even be exercising their rights to free speech. But they are also harassing people who exercise their legal rights.
The debate is, as per the title: Should anti-abortion protest in front of clinics be outlawed as harassment? Should such protest be limited to protesting elsewhere, for instance?
I do believe that one of the original goals of protest was to shame people. If someone really went over the line, but not in any legal sense, hounding them out of town helps to keep the peace.
That was probably a component of, but not the primary focus of the right to protest. Principally, though, it was to allow people to spread information so that the other people in town could stay informed and act and vote wisely, without interference from the government or anyone else.
In the modern day, I don’t think that “hounding people out of town” is really a necessity. The legal system has developed enough that you’re better to take someone to court if you think they’re doing something repugnant. We don’t even let little children bully each other any more, nowadays.
If someone wants to stand out front of a clinic, handing out pamphlets, then good for them, but anything more than that is really just psychological bullying.
Another question: how widespread is this picketing near clinics in the US? Does it happen at general family planning clinics, general hospitals, or just at specific abortion clinics? Is there a way for the woman to save face by pretending she just goes in for her annual ob-gyn consultation? Do clinics have separate entryways? What happens when the hospital has an abortion clinic indoors, so the protestors might want to protest indoors, on hospital property? Is that allowed, or should they remain outside on the public street and protest to the general public?
So if we shut down abortion protesters then who else do we permit government to shut down?
Shall we ban labor protesters shouting “SCAB!” at replacement workers who are just trying to go to work to feed their families? Maybe we should ban nuclear energy protesters as a danger to national security?
Or protesters could keep to the public sidewalk and speak their minds about their cause, whatever that cause may be. I do not think government should be in the business of censoring protests based upon content of the message.
To Maastrict’s question: Abortion protests must stay on public property unless invited by the private property owner, so they are highly unlikely to be able to legally protest inside a hospital. Protesters can be removed from private property as trespassers. The US Supreme Court has upheld some state laws setting limits on how close protesters may approach clinic customers on public property without permission of the customer.
I used to be an escort for a women’s clinic that offered several services, including abortions. The protesters knew what days the abortions were done, and what hours. They were allowed to be on the public sidewalks, and they were allowed to scream at the patients and the patients’ husbands/friends/SOs. They weren’t allowed to physically block the entrances, or touch anyone. They weren’t allowed to be on the clinic property.
The protesters only showed up when they knew that the patients were likely to be there to get an abortion. And for the record, not one patient changed her mind because of the protesters.
As far as I’m concerned, it seemed to be entirely about shaming the women who had the nerve to want to control when and whether they would become mothers.
This all happened in the late 80s/early 90s in Fort Worth, Texas.
Your first example fitst the best, but not quite. Strikers shouting down replacement workers is indeed personal, and every bit as vehement as the anti-abortion protesters. It is meant to shame and chase off the replacement workers. However, it could be argued that the strikers are directly affected by the willingness of the replacement workers; the replacement workers are, indeed, interfering in the business of the workers on strike. No such case can be made for anti-abortion picketeers. They make something their business that isn’t their business, psysically, medically, emotionally or economically.
If another woman’s abortion is the picketers business, morally, is open to debate.
Your second example, nuclear energy protestors, does not apply IMHO. The protest there is much less personal; I can’t remember that such protests were aimed at the plant workers or security workers, personally. And I also think that such workers, anonimised by their job, their numbers, and the fact that they don’t have to face an already gruesome decision, are far less affected by such protestors anyway.
The government, through laws and police guidelines, does interfere in situations where we feel one party bullies the other. Police in the past did not interfere in domestic abuse, or in severe bullying at schools; now they do. And most people approve, even those favouring minimal government. Does bullying women entering a clinic count in the same way? That is the debate here.
Each state has it’s own set of law regarding harassment. What evidence do you have that they were violating the law in your state?
No. There’s nothing special about abortion clinics that requires the passage of legislation curtailing our 1st Amendment rights. If protestors are harassing anyone then they can be prosecuted under current laws.
I’m sure folks in the Deep South were upset by the sit-ins and protests back during the 60s, and complained about people coming in from out of state to interfere in something that was none of their business. So what?
The question of whether or not someone is a person worthy of equal rights under the Constitution is everyone’s business.
No, it doesn’t count in the same way. The right of Americans peaceably to assemble, to speak their minds freely, and to petition the government for redress of grievances, is guaranteed under our Constitution.
No, I don’t think so. I don’t like this idea that free speech and the right to peaceful assembly is okay, as long as it’s outside of the hearing/sight of those you want to talk to (like the corrals they’re setting up at politicians’ events to keep the protesters away from the cameras and politicians.)
And I really, really hate abortion clinic protesters.
But if I expect my constitutionally granted right to go near them with a few of my friends and tell them what reprehensible lying hypocritical unChristian rat turds they are to be protected, then I expect their constitutionally granted right to gather near women who are going into clinics to be protected. I can’t ask the government to protect only the speech I agree with.
“Harassment” generally means persistently going up to or following someone, physically or via technology, and saying mean things to them. (Although, as Odesio says, that varies by jurisdiction, and if protesters are violating those statutes, then yes, of course they should be charged with harassment and treated accordingly.) It’s not generally harassment to say mean things to someone who walks by you. And, again, I can’t figure out a way to stop that that couldn’t be used to stop me from, for example, telling a man yelling at his girlfriend in public that he’s being a jerk.
I do wish there was some way to punish them for making false claims and outright lies, however. But if we make lying in public illegal, we won’t have any politicians left to make laws!
Yeah, but here it is not the government that is petitioned. It is individual women. And they are not petitioned in the general sense (“please support our cause !”) No, they as individuals, are hissed at and shouted at regarding their individual choice and their individual morals.
I beleive they have a legal right to protest,but to me it shows they are not pro-life,just pro-birth. They spend money and time protesting when the time would be better spent helping the already born(whom they seem to forget have rights as well).
I think there are certain people who feel it is their responsibility to look for what they believe is wrong in others, so they don’t have to fix what is wrong with themselves. They remind me of the Pharisees and the people who were going to stone the woman in the NT who were going to kill her because she commited Adultry. Jesus told them that who ever was with out sin should cast the first stone…all left!
You seem to have skipped over the portion that is directly applicable: “… the right of Americans peaceably to assemble, to speak their minds freely…”
I’ll just echo what has already been said. No one should be permitted to harass someone, assuming “harassment” is defined in a constitutionally acceptable manner. We likewise should not restrict free speech only for certain causes or beliefs. I don’t think there needs to be any material conflict between these two notions. And someone yelling something at you as you pass by that you’d rather not hear does not constitute harassment, IMO. It’s just one of the drawbacks of living in a free society.
Bolding mine. That is interesting. Does no one protest that?
Keeping the protestors away there? I bet that no-one protests that because Rep and Dems have a shared interest there; neither wants their press rallies disturbed. And they have enough power to force the law into prot3ecting them. “security” is probably the reason given for that, as if a prominent politician doesn’t have his own body guards to protect him.
Hmn..I keep trying to think of other historical parallels. Workers on strike vs “scabs” has some parallels, as I said upthread. I don’t think Shodan’s other example is a fair comparison either.
The protesters from outher state (while you are right that they came to picketabout something that wasn’t their personal business) came to protest the generalities. In fact Shodan, what is more similar to this situation is people hissing at the first black children going in to the newly desegegrated schools. Those kids were vulnerable, they exercised a (new) legal right, and the Jim Crow protestors made it personal when they hissed at the children. The decent thing to do would have been to leave the kids alone and just go picketing the government. Anti abortionist should have as much decency and just picket the general public and the government, and leave women going in to the clinics alone.
The abortion issue has waned from the forefront of the political debate that it held in the 80s. But there would be pro-life protesters at many clinics and there would be pro-choice protesters yelling right back at them.
Some clinics encouraged volunteers to act as escorts as Lynn Bodoni did to help counter the impact of the pro-life protesters.
We are not guaranteed to go through life without being offended. If we give government, say the Obama administration, the power to stifle protests at abortion clinics then how do you think a Romney (or let’s make this really bad, a Santorum) administration would use that power to stifle protests?
SCOTUS has upheld the Westboro Baptist Church’s rights to make hateful protest at the funerals of fallen US servicemembers. Without buying into the hate-fueled (il)logic of those protesters I cannot fathom how the families attending the funeral had anything to do with Westboro. Westboro is sticking their collective noses where they have no business. They aren’t really petitioning government. They are just spewing their venom. It’s personal to the families of the fallen. And it’s hateful. And so long as the Westboro-ites abide by the law, they can do so.
And counter protesters can turn out in much greater numbers and do everything legal within their power to spread the counter message that Westboro’s brand of protest is not welcome.
So… don’t like demonstrators outside abortion clinics? Show up with your like minded friends and counter protest. And bring cookies to share. Really weirds them out. Hard to personally hate someone offering free cookies.
Iggy does have a point: if the Phelps’ are allowed to picket, so should the anti-abortionists. That is not a compliment for those picketeers, by the way.
One more question: are there still pro choice counter picketeers? Or have just the pro-life picketeers remained?
It may be similar in many ways, but none of those are pertinent to the question. You want to restrict certain protests because you think the motives and tactics are mean-spirited. The other guys disagree, though–and that’s where you argument goes off the rails.
Everyone thinks their cause is righteous. No one thinks their motives or tactics are base. And consequently, we don’t let the government decide either–and neither do we let people like you, who have the “proper” sensibilities. I don’t mean that disrespectfully.
In answer to your last post, “peaceful” is not defined by whether or not something makes you feel anxious. It means respecting physical boundaries, not inciting unlawful behavior, etc. It doesn’t mean “not being mean to others.”
Stratocaster, I agree, but then again, the case could be made that “saying mean things” has crossed the line into “verbal abuse” which has some legal repercussions.