Of course, when I write "Pittsburghers" I mean women in Pittsburgh attempting to enter women's clinics because no one is, say, stalking men going to get Viagra prescriptions.
From the Post-Gazette:
That was the opinion of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday in striking down a 2005 Pittsburgh ordinance that limited the rights of pro-life protesters at medical facilities where abortions are performed. [Actually, legally any medical facility.]Reaction by Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania:
The ordinance, designed to protect patients who said they were being harassed as they entered the clinics, created an 8-foot bubble zone around people approaching medical facilities, as well as a 15-foot buffer zone from center entrances.
In an 83-page opinion, the circuit court wrote that the combination of the two zones was too much and burdened "substantially more speech than necessary" [because wimmin are dumb, impulsive bitches and having a state imposed 24-hour waiting period just isn't enough to help these hos with their barely human thought processes -- or something like that I'm guessing].
[snip]
The Supreme Court has separately found in favor of both buffer and bubble zones, but the Third Circuit said the use of both has never been upheld.
Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania is troubled and disappointed by the recent ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit which effectively reduced the protection of women seeking out medical care at family planning centers in Pittsburgh. While pleased that the court approved a modified version of the original ordinance, Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania is concerned with the reduced protections this rule offers patients and others impacted by protesters at medical facilities.Reaction by mayoral candidate Franco Dok Harris:
[snip]
“The security and privacy of our clients has been greatly enhanced by the Pittsburgh Medical Safety Zone Ordinance” said Kim Evert, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania. “We will continue to work with the city to ensure that patient safety needs are met and are dismayed by the courts decision to weaken these protections.”
“Protecting women’s rights to have unfettered access to family planning services free of intimidation and threats will be a top priority for my administration. Protecting free speech is important but the Nation’s founders never meant free speech to be used to intimidate, harass and endanger women” Harris says.Reaction by Pittsburgh City Councilor Bill Peduto:
Many of the clinics this ordinance protects provide health services like free and low cost breast exams, pap smears, and pre-natal care for low income women.
Franco Dok Harris is the only pro choice candidate in the race and the only candidate not to receive endorsement or large donations from anti-choice Political Action Committees.
Harris added that “we must create new protections immediately so that there is no lapse in the safety we are able to provide to women seeking health care services. Women should never feel unsafe or intimidated when they need care.”
William Peduto, a city councilman who helped craft the original legislation, said that there will be a meeting with the solicitor's office this week to determine how to move forward..
The city could appeal the court's decision, or choose to narrow the ordinance.
"In my opinion, it's essential that people have the right to obtain legal health care without being subjected to intimidation," Mr. Peduto said. "We can do that while protecting individual rights of freedom of speech and expression."
15 comments:
On one hand, I don't understand this decision at all. I mean I'm not a legal expert but I usually understand the logic behind a legal opinion once its read to me. Yet here either or is okay, but not both? Ugh.
On the other hand -- here it comes, Maria -- I'm not sure anyone deserves a legal protection "not to be harassed". Don't get me wrong, harassing women on the way to receive legal health care as they deem fit is b-a-d BAD and those protesters ought to cut it the hell out, but ought it be illegal? What about free speech and the right to assemble? Surely we can prosecute harassment which goes over the line on its own merits, from obstructing a public right-of-way to assault. If I were a politician myself I totally would have voted for this ordinance, but I totally would have been pandering to what I like to imagine would be my base.
"I'm not sure anyone deserves legal protection 'not to be harassed.'
Abortion is LEGAL.
Harassment is ILLEGAL.
We deserve to be protected from what is illegal. We are allowed to participate in what is legal.
http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.027.009.000.html
Bram, your assertions go both ways. First you say that you are not sure that any random person deserves legal protection "not to be harassed", then you say that "we can prosecute harassment which goes over the line on its own merits". Or are you saying that someone is committing a different crime as well when harassing?
Consider the category of “hate crime”. An actual specific criminal act may be vandalism, assault or even murder, but “hate crime” can be added to the charges if prosecutors think some from of a recognized type of prejudice was a factor in the crime. These laws come from pressure from constituents on the state legislature to express the belief that such prejudice is wrong, and does not reflect the opinion of the majority.
Obviously abortion is more complicated, but a majority of citizens still feel women should be allowed to get abortions, albeit with restrictions. This is balanced against the free speech rights of the pro-life people, who wish to express their view that abortion is wrong. To my way of thinking, it is a good thing when society realizes that choosing to have an abortion is almost certainly the most difficult decision a women might make, almost certainly one that is not made lightly, and it is insulting in the extreme for someone to suggest that they might change a woman’s mind by screaming in her face, shoving her and calling her names as she walks to the door of an abortion clinic. But if you want to suggest that is a compelling way to establish a cogent and coherent point, that is your right.
I would further assert that bubble and buffer zones advance the notion, hopefully societies’ notion, that abortion clinics should be safe places to be. In particular, I think we should be supporting the idea that pro life people should only be able to speak about their beliefs, not act on them. This decision runs the (possibly intended) risk that the government thinks the killing of abortion doctors is somehow justified.
" ... a majority of citizens still feel women should be allowed to get abortions ... "
I take great issue not only with the phrasing of this, Ed ("women should be allowed"), but the fact remains that we are not talking about feelings here. We're talking about LAW.
Abortion is LEGAL.
Not only Abortion is LEGAL.
It is a super precedent that override all other rights such as
Free Speech, Right to assemble and Due process.
At least according to progressives.
And don't say that is a strawman because I remember Lynn Cullen claiming that is what the Supreme Court decided to defend arresting abortion protesters and prosecuting them under RICO.
Of course the City of Pittsburgh does not have a problem passing unconstitutional laws.
“Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?” said Councilwoman Tonya Payne. “This is what’s right to do, and if this means that we have to go out and have a court battle, then that’s fine … We have plenty of dead bodies coming up in our streets every single day, and that is unacceptable.”
Ms Mon, I was writing in the context of the “what is the rationale” for passing additional laws to protect people entering abortion clinics from people ostensibly exercising their rights to free speech. Apparently the pro-life people do not care that abortion is legal, they wish to be able to use their right to free speech to prevent people from entering abortion clinics. In phrasing my statement as "a majority of citizens still feel women should be allowed to get abortions, albeit with restrictions" I was trying to pre-empt a conservative rejoinder that abortion is immoral. Again, as I understand it, the pro-choice people believe Roe V Wade was decided incorrectly, and believe it is only technically legal.
HTTT, I have no idea what Lynn Cullen has said about the Supreme Court. No one thinks of the Roberts court as a particularly progressive one, though, so if they are supporting the idea of prosecuting radical members of a pro-life fringe group, I suspect it is with good reason. As for the rest of your … comment, I guess you are in support of killing police officers and unarmed women.
Told ya.
City council over reached. They hatched an ordinance that presents more problems. There are enforcement issues, constitutional issues, cost issues, and a bunch of other traps along the way.
We don't need folly and city council to churn over this again and even have more court fights -- as the only ones who are winning are the attorneys.
"I don't understand this decision at all. I mean I'm not a legal expert but I usually understand the logic behind a legal opinion once its read to me. Yet here either or is okay, but not both? Ugh."
>>>> The court has the unenviable task of trying to balance out two competing sets of rights. If you say a 15-foot buffer zone is good, why isn't a 30-foot buffer zone twice as good? For that matter, why not make it a mile? Or 10?
At some point, you have to draw the line where the protections afforded to a clinic and its patrons ends ... and the right to free speech begins. So where is that point? Any place you pick can always be faulted for being arbitrary. Just as this ruling may seem to be, because it says, essentially "you can have 'x' amount of protection, but not '2x'."
But it's not like the court was making this stuff up. The court's ruling asserts that "use of both types of zones [buffer and bubble] appears to be unprecedented among regulatory schemes upheld by courts." The ruling notes that in previous cases, courts upheld buffer zones while striking down bubble zones that were originally included. Assuming that's all true, there seems to be precedent for the decision here. And that's what judges go by.
I can certainly understand why people are bummed out about this -- the result will be less protection than women and clinics had before. But interestingly, the ruling actually suggests ways in which the city can ENHANCE the protections provided by whichever kind of zone it decides to hold onto.
People can agree or disagree with the outcome, of course. But on my first reading, it seems like a sincere effort to grapple with the issues here.
Ed, I heard Lynn Cullen say that when she was on WPTT before Sandra Day O'Connor was replaced by Samuel Alito.
I guess you are in support of killing police officers and unarmed women.
As you support Police state tactics and criminalizing Self Defense.
"He should not have taken the law in his hands," said Rosa Jones, Gadson's grandmother.
HTTT, you said "Ed, I heard Lynn Cullen say that when she was on WPTT before Sandra Day O'Connor was replaced by Samuel Alito."
So that is a non-issue right now.
"As you support Police state tactics and criminalizing Self Defense."
Well, I would be happy as a clam (are clams happy?) if handgun and semi-automatic rifle ownership were banned. John Ensign stated that he thinks the reason American health care performs worse than European health care is because of guns and auto accidents (presumably speeding SUV's). So even the Republicans are making the case that gun violence is too high.
So that is a non-issue right now.
Maybe you should read the last line of my comment
It is a super precedent that override all other rights such as
Free Speech, Right to assemble and Due process.
At least according to progressives.
Ed -- I appreciate your comments and clarification. I could add that, there are many things that are legal that are clearly not right, at least to me. That doesn't necessarily mean I am saying that abortion is one of them. I'm opining strictly from a legal standpoint.
I do not define myself as a "progressive," but I certainly do not think that a woman's right to exercise a legal health option supercedes other constitutional rights, such as free speech and right to assemble.
Chris Potter offers great enlightenment to this discussion. We have to find a way to allow everyone to exercise their rights.
The Declaration of Independence never guaranteed happiness -- only that we be free to pursue it.
And that, we are.
(OK -- at this point, are you hearing the fife and drum version of "Yankee Doodle" that they played on Green Acres when Oliver Wendell Douglas would ramble on like this yet?)
I hear it, I hear it!
Post a Comment