Thursday, January 16, 2014

Verbally Assaulting Women Seeking Abortion Services is NOT Free Speech!

 As seen in the appended image, states across the nation have erected impediment after impediment to prevent women seeking abortions from accessing services. 

But even in those states (e.g. Mass. ) where legislative obstacles are relatively few, the  resident religious knuckle draggers aren't satisfied. They want no abortion "buffer zones" - i.e. where women can enter clinics free of hassling and verbal molestation.

Hence, a 77 year old Massachusetts harpy and religious fruitcake has taken a case to the Supreme Court, that she be permitted to "quietly engage women going for abortions, to talk them out of it". Make no mistake that this is not "quietly talking" it is forcefully pushing a religious view on women who are already in a psychologically  fragile state. In this sense, it is akin to psychological torture and molestation. Indeed, in many cases, women attempting to enter clinics are yelled at with shouts of "Don't kill that baby!" with the idiots not even aware that a fetus isn't a baby, or even a person.

The assorted chatter of some Supremes (Scalia, Alito, and Kagan)  broadcast last night makes one wonder how they will eventually vote. According to Scalia: "They (Christians) only wish to quietly talk to the women, and express their free speech rights."

He added that the Massachusetts- declared 35 foot buffer zone prevented this, because most of the women could get inside before the protestors even had a chance to see who they wanted to to.

It makes me wonder where the fuck Scalia was when good old Bush Junior had his henchmen erect two hundred foot distant (from Bush events)  "free speech zones" - whenever demonstrators wanted to protest one or more of his policies. Of course, Bush had good reason to establish such "free speech zones" given all his criminal actions, including validating torture at Guantanamo, "rendering" people to isolated torture outposts in Turkey, etc., and launching illegal, pre-emptive "wars".

But the point is, if those two hundred foot buffer zones for Bush could be viewed as within the law, then the thirty -five foot abortion buffer zones in Massachusetts certainly meets the legal standard too. If, on the other hand, the 35' buffers are deemed illegal, it means we can add one more unlawful act to the Bushies' list during their reign of terror. Because obviously those 200' free speech zones would have to be illegal in hindsight.

Let us also get clear what is "free speech" and what isn't.  Free speech is NOT oral terrorism! In this regard, I put the sort of fundie-Xtianoid yapping at women entering abortion clinics in the same category as evangelical "witnessing".  Aggressive proselytizing, in other words, or "witnessing", amounts to personal terrorism.  That is, psychological terror applied to the person, as opposed to say a city or blowing up an abortion clinic.

If it is terror then any fundie screaming bible quotes in my face as I go on my way deserves to get clocked. It's as simple as that. He is encroaching on my space, and in doing so attempting a psychological act of terror - so it is incumbent on me to stop him if he refuses to obey a direct order to back off.

I assert the same applies to those screaming their nonsense and "talk" at women entering an abortion clinic. In this sense, one must view Massachusetts' buffer law as a means to protect the anti-abortion fanatics from themselves - and likely from any woman who may have had enough and already be at the end of her tether.

As for Scalia's interpretation that the anti-abortionists are only engaged in "quiet talk", give me a break. If you are "quietly" telling a woman that she is about to "go to Hell" for her sin or  kill her "baby" you're still practicing oral terror. The level of decibels with which the message is delivered doesn't matter.  The objective is still to intimidate a citizen and harass her into complying with the religionist's bollocks.

The best course for the Supremes to take is to leave the Massachusetts abortion buffer zone law the way it is. Not to do so will be to invite retaliation by those subjected to localized terrorism.

Yes, you have a right to your speech, but your speech ends where my nose begins. If you violate that, then well......

No comments: