[aldo_14]

Civil Disobedience is still disobedience.

A hospital and a women's clinic are hardly the same thing. An abortion is hardly a necessary medical service either. It is also worth stating, that these clinics give medical facilities a bad name. Unsually the way that abortion clinics get closed down is for FLAGRANT violations of medical regulations and in some more or less rare cases bonafied murder and neglect.

An abortion is a necessary medical service for many women, otherwise abortion as an issue would not exist.   In any case, it is undoubtedly a medical service whether you agree on necessity or not, and thus one which is being obstructed.

The standard of various abortion clinics has absolutely no relevance I can see to this topic; protestors do not perform the act of medical inspection and regulation, regardless of whether 1, 10 or 100 feet away and I'm not sure why you bring this up.

 If you wish to make a case for closing down abortion clinics/banning abortion based on medical standards, then by all means do so, but don't try and slap it onto the bum of the civil liberties/right to protest debate here.

Protesting outside a clinic has the purpose of getting the message to the targeted audience. There is a line between intimidation and persuation. Challenging what someone is about to do isn't wrong. Being abusive, pushy and threatening is. Just like protesting outside a GM plant or protesting outside a car dealership, why do groups need to protest outside these locations? Why can't they strike or protest in the middle of the park some where? We wouldn't want them to 'intimidate' scabs or someone want to by an Hummer? If you do it for one group based on fears of 'intimidation' than you should equally be applied to all. To some extent, this at its core might even violate equal protection as it seeks to and directly names a specific industry instead off applying to all IIRC. I could be wrong. I don't know the specifics of the law.

This is the Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act law; http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/facestat.htm.  It also protects places of worship as well as reproductive health centres.  My understanding is that individual states also opted to add distance clauses (you'll note the absence of any here).

[Kazan]

i had a nice point-by-point refutation of your nonsense going redmenace... and then my browser beserked because i bumped the wrong key and i lost it

freepseach and right to assembly end at the following places: when you cross the line into verbal assault and harassment (which 95%+ of abortion clinic protestors do), private property

verbal assault and harassment are not civil disobedience, civil disobedience is resistance to the government - not to other people getting medical treatment they desire.

the fact that a only a small percentage are physically violent is irrelevant (most still engage in physical intimidation) - almost the entire rest engage in verbal assault and harassment - they cross the line of the limits of free speech.

We have banned union blockaiding in the past, and have escorted scabs into places of business with national guard troups.

what the **** does NAMBLA have to do with environmentalists? you're starting to become irrational

environmental protestors don't have a history of crossing the line and becoming verball abusive, harassing, physically intimidating.

Telling people that they cannot demonstrate and protest in a place because they've engaged in verbal abusive, harassment and physical intimidation is MANDATED by the requirement to protect the rights of individuals.

But i guess it is ok to do so as long as you disagree with them?

stop trolling

Yes, the ACLU even fights for people they find distasteful - the fact that the ACLU fought something isn't a sure-fire sign it's unconstitutional - only that they thought it may have been.  Apparently they were ruled against.

Ultimatly, I don't think this had anything to peoples safty. It had more to do with the abortion lobby, NOW and pandering.

you're completely incorrect - we have a court that has consisted of 7 conservatives and 2 liberals for longer than this law has existed, the conservative justices found in favor of the law being constitutional.

protestors DON'T have the right to verbally assault patients.


------------------

And why do the protests need to be right outside the clinic, anyways, if not for the purposes of intimidation?

EDIT; terrorism is simply attempting to coerce through threats.  Inspiring fear and terror through intimidation.  Hence terrorism.

BINGO!

--------------------

Civil Disobedience is still disobedience.

civil disobedience is against the government, not other people.

[quite]A hospital and a women's clinic are hardly the same thing.[/quite]

irrelevant, and many abortion clinics are inside hospitals

An abortion is hardly a necessary medical service either.

right... so just because people who are reproductive fascists and think they get to control the bodies of other's assert that something isn't necessary, it's not neccessary now?

yeah.. it's not like being pregnant ever threatens the life of women... oh wait.. it does

It is also worth stating, that these clinics give medical facilities a bad name.

only to people who cannot deal with other people having the right to medical choice. 

Libertarian my ass.

Unsually the way that abortion clinics get closed down is for FLAGRANT violations of medical regulations and in some more or less rare cases bonafied murder and neglect.

never heard of a single incident of this happening.  Stop pulling **** out of your ass

Protesting outside a clinic has the purpose of getting the message to the targeted audience.

no, it has the purpose of intimidation, verbal assault, and harassment

There is a line between intimidation and persuation.

yes there is, and abortion clinic protestors not only cross it-  they go flying by it at mach 4

Challenging what someone is about to do isn't wrong. Being abusive, pushy and threatening is.

challenging what another private citizen is about to have done medically isn ot your business, and being abusive, pushy and threatening is exactly what all the protestors are doing.

Just like protesting outside a GM plant or protesting outside a car dealership, why do groups need to protest outside these locations?

stop acting like abortion clinic protestors behave anyway like these protestors - these protestors aren't 1/10th as abusive.

*redmenace continues on with his false analogy*

To some extent, this at its core might even violate equal protection as it seeks to and directly names a specific industry instead off applying to all IIRC. I could be wrong. I don't know the specifics of the law.

you are wrong, and clearly don't know the details of the entire situation.

------------

Aldo > redmenace

[redmenace]

In regaurds to the state of clinics, you made references to groups closing down clinics using intimidation etc. I also do take issue with considering them repubable medical facilities.

[redmenace]

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/15236078.htm
Clinic Shutdown
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/114803062048470.xml&coll=2
Again.
Hence they give medical facilities a bad name.

Also, I admit I don't know enough about it. You should do the same.

Aldo > redmenace

Leave it up to you to start to become belittling and mean, CONVERSATION OVER, PERIOD.

[aldo_14]

In regaurds to the state of clinics, you made references to groups closing down clinics using intimidation etc. I also do take issue with considering them repubable medical facilities.

Somehow I doubt protesters only target medically deficient clinics.

What on earth does whether you consider them reputable have to do with anything.  They are medical facilities - full stop.  If you think they need tighter regulation, then fine.  But I fail to see the connection between your perception of the medical quality of (all?) clinics and the issue of protest distance.  In essence the closest - tenuous at best - connection I can see is a thread of blaming/criticising the 'victim'. 

And in any case, why does linking to two news stories count?  I bet you could find countless stories for hospitals, GP surgeries, etc of the same ilk.  There was a case in Scotland of a girl being given a lethal radiation overdose at the Beatson Cancer Clinic - does that make all cancer clinics disreputable?  Does the Alder Hey scandal make all hospitals disreputable?  Bring me statistics showing a large amount of negligence in abortion clinics, then we can talk.... but only about tighter regulation by the appropriate medical authorities.

[NGTM-1R]

Terrorists have been known to protest in the past.  It's a good way to get into the target.

That is, of course, ignoring the protestors who taunt, threaten and verbally abuse both patients and staff going into abortion clinics, which is in itself terrorising those people (lest we forget what 'terrorist' means).

Perhaps, but we're not supposed to operate on a guilty until proven innocent basis.

I suppose I was objecting to Kosh's statement being non sequitor at its finest, really. Terrorism does not necessarily follow from protesting. In fact, had I been in a particularly cruel mood, I would have accused him of using terrorism as a hot button like he complains Bush does.

[aldo_14]

Terrorists have been known to protest in the past.  It's a good way to get into the target.

That is, of course, ignoring the protestors who taunt, threaten and verbally abuse both patients and staff going into abortion clinics, which is in itself terrorising those people (lest we forget what 'terrorist' means).

Perhaps, but we're not supposed to operate on a guilty until proven innocent basis.

I suppose I was objecting to Kosh's statement being non sequitor at its finest, really. Terrorism does not necessarily follow from protesting. In fact, had I been in a particularly cruel mood, I would have accused him of using terrorism as a hot button like he complains Bush does.

Aren't security cordons around, say, government buildings and politicians equally decryable as 'guilty until proven innocent', then?

What is the need to have protestors right up at the door of the clinic?  I'm not talking about herding them into 'protest zones' or such, of course, but what's wrong with having them just far enough to allow people to pass peacefully through to the clinic without harassment?  I see these clinics, being medical premises and often providing services to vulnerable and traumatised young women, as being worthy of special protection.  It's surely not that much different to moving funeral protestors away, is it?

[Mefustae]

funeral protestors

But that's not fair! Just because a few funeral protesters are insultingly despicable doesn't mean we should hinder everyone's right to protest at funerals! Imagine how unfair it would be if they started telling strikers where they could protest outside a GMC Plant? It's the same thing, honest![/redmenace]

[Kazan]

Leave it up to you to start to become belittling and mean, CONVERSATION OVER, PERIOD.

you're one to talk

I also do take issue with considering them repubable medical facilities.

 You are not a doctor, or a medical examiner

[edit]
hey aldo.. take me off ignore so i can send you a pm pls

[vyper]

I also do take issue with considering them repubable medical facilities.

 You are not a doctor, or a medical examiner

Definitely.