Author: has written 186 posts for this blog.

tigtog blogs a lot elsewhere, but here on Feministe she mostly does the tech support and feeds the giraffe. tigtog tweets in flurries @vivsmythe.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

21 Responses

  1. Drahill
    Drahill June 27, 2014 at 10:03 pm |

    I will admit, I was surprised that this decision was so unanimous. I was also slightly surprised that none of the 4 liberal justices did not file a concurrence that pushed back some against Roberts’ rationale of “gentle counseling.”

    I could understand the huge amount of anger that happened when the decision first came down. However, coming at it from a legal perspective, I have sort of struggled to think of how this case could have resolved in some other way. And I’m not sure if it could. I believe that the liberal justices were probably not thrilled to have to vote this way and probably did try to conceive of alternative arguments. But no dice. I’m still trying to figure out in my head how an alternative resolution really could have been achieved, but so far, I’m really not coming up with one. And that’s a really nasty feeling to have.

    1. RillyKewl
      RillyKewl June 28, 2014 at 6:58 pm |

      Here’s a few alternative arguments.

      Forget about me arguing in my own words, I’ve got Cenk from TYT here, whose already done way better than I ever could’ve. He’s a lawyer, and knows his shlt.

      1. RillyKewl
        RillyKewl June 28, 2014 at 7:02 pm |

        It looks like my link didn’t make the cut.
        Please go here:
        youtube. com/watch?v=K0FuMri8dvU&feature=share&list=PLTpcK80irdQgmm5-xCQjBYqyhpzixki_X

  2. Ruby Jiselle
    Ruby Jiselle June 28, 2014 at 8:13 pm |

    I don’t understand what makes these people think they have a “right” to “talk to*” patients as they enter the clinic. We’re not talking about some preacher dude standing on a corner yelling at passersby as they walk to work or the store. We’re talking about people who actively want to interfere with medical care. How is that a right?

    *Talk to my ass. Standing around holding signs, praying, yelling insults at the top of your lungs and attempting to force people to pay attention to is you is not “talking to” someone. (Sorry, I had to deal with these types when I had my abortion. It ended with me in tears and my flatmate wanting to hit one of them. I may be a bit biased.)

    1. lisaw
      lisaw June 29, 2014 at 7:02 am |

      I don’t understand what makes these people think they have a “right” to “talk to*” patients as they enter the clinic. We’re not talking about some preacher dude standing on a corner yelling at passersby as they walk to work or the store. We’re talking about people who actively want to interfere with medical care. How is that a right?

      Simply put, the principle that the content of your ideas doesn’t determine whether you have a write to express them is the foundation of the First Amendment. If you’re on public property it doesn’t particularly matter if the words you’re shouting relate to religion, politics, or medical care.

      And you’re right. The forced-birthers have no interest in ‘talking to’ anyone, and they know from experience they don’t persuade many people not to have abortions. It’s just a way of feeling special/self-righteous; “doing God’s work” and protesting and being supported by donations makes them feel important, in a way going to church once a week doesn’t.

  3. Laurie Mann
    Laurie Mann June 28, 2014 at 11:07 pm |

    It’s not “gentle counseling” – it’s harassment pure and simple. Note that the Supreme Court has a huge buffer zone around it. The hypocrisy of SCOTUS on this issue is disgusting.

    1. Donna L
      Donna L June 29, 2014 at 1:54 am |

      I wonder how it would work if I tried to “gently counsel” Justice Scalia on his own decisions, when he’s about to enter the Supreme Court building. I’d end up with my ass in jail, assuming I wasn’t shot first.

    2. lisaw
      lisaw June 29, 2014 at 2:33 am |

      Actually, chances are pretty good that if you sued the Supreme Court over the buffer zone around it, you’d be able to get it overturned. In United States v. Grace the court decided 7-2 that a law prohibited political demonstrations on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court building was unconstitutional.

      Just FYI, the nine justices of the Supreme Court don’t set building security policy. But if the buffer zone there is sufficiently upsetting, you could legitimately partner with the ACLU, protest in the zone, get kicked out, and successfully sue. I’m not being facetious.

  4. Anna
    Anna June 29, 2014 at 1:09 pm |

    Here in Arizona, buffer zones are currently a moot point now that all of our abortion providers are located on private property. I live in Tucson, but I used to hear terrifying stories of the protests and harassment up in Phoenix before Planned Parenthood’s health center was moved to private property. One of our bloggers used to be a clinic escort up there, and has shared her story about the importance of buffer zones.

    I’m wondering if moving clinics to private property will just be another burden that abortion providers are forced to accept — along with the other ridiculous demands made by TRAP laws, regulating the the width of hallways, janitors’ closets, and lawn care. Having to locate your clinic on private property might not be a part of any law, but I suspect it will become more and more of a necessity in order to protect patients’ safety and privacy.

    1. lisaw
      lisaw June 29, 2014 at 7:26 pm |

      I’m wondering if moving clinics to private property will just be another burden that abortion providers are forced to accept — along with the other ridiculous demands made by TRAP laws, regulating the the width of hallways, janitors’ closets, and lawn care. Having to locate your clinic on private property might not be a part of any law, but I suspect it will become more and more of a necessity in order to protect patients’ safety and privacy.

      I think that’s probably likely, unfortunately.

      I wish there were people protesting at the homes of the forced-birthers.

  5. trans_commie
    trans_commie June 30, 2014 at 12:00 am |

    Freedom of speech doesn’t entail a right to an audience. Reactionaries tend to ignore that important detail because they aren’t concerned about securing rights – they’re just invested in not losing their ability to silence oppressed people. They’re in a very fortunate situation, though – the world will listen to them no matter what.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.