Coyote
Well-Known Member
The 2006 appearance before the USSC dismissed all claims by NOW abortionists, including those left over from 2003. Let me scope it down for you. The abortionists have never ceased trying to stop even pro-life protest.
Anti-choice advocates felt they had a right to force their choices on other women by any means possible including physically and verbally assaulting them, intimmidating them, threatening their privacy, preventing them from getting into a clinic, destroying equipment, destroying property, and even committing murder - all under the supposed protection of "free speech".
Your right to free speech ends when you enroach upon my space.
They know that if the young women the abortionists prey on ever hear both sides, they'll lose.
What makes you think they don't know both sides? That appears to be a common point of arrogance and ignorance among some of the more extremist anti-choicers (or, to use terminology that might appeal better to you - antichoicenazi's? pro-some-life-fascists?)
And, since when has "hearing both sides" meant assault and obstruction?
The main actions they wanted to stop was what the pro-life groups called street-corner counseling - ie approaching young women and eg asking them if the ever saw a photo of a six month fetus. This is the thing NOW wanted to stop - information other than pro-abortionist propaganda would be death for their movement.
The majority of abortions occur well before 6 months for one thing. For another - they typically refuse to take "no" for an answer. Do you seriously think these women come in for abortions like a stroll in a park - that they aren't already torn up with a difficult choice? Do you seriously think that some of these abortion clinics don't offer a range of choices besides abortions including contacts for adoption should that be desired? And what exactly are these self-described "street corner counselors" offering? Precious little beyond deception. Deception first off that they are actually being inhibited. They aren't - they just have to maintain a reasonable personal distance that any of these women can easily cross if they wish to be "counseled".
Again - your right to free speech stops short of my personal space. You have no right to assault me either physically or verbally in the guise of free speech. And that is not limited to anti-choice activists either - I feel the same way towards PETA demonstrators.
The times when clinincs were trashed, etc were a miniscule percentage of pro-life actions.
Really? You mean like aborting 6 months and beyond is a miniscule percentage of abortions but you like to use photographs of those fetus (which are typically of miscarriages or medically necessary abortions but you pretend otherwise)?
But they used that to go after the pro-life people. Some shrewd abortionist lawyer noted that they would get people from a number of states to show up at a particular protest, so they came up with the ludicrous idea of using RICO, which had been designed to fight the MAFIA, to silence the pro-life people. NOW spent 20 years desperately pushing this idea through the courts, until the USSC slammed the door on it once and for all in the 2006 decision.
They only slammed it on using RICO. Not on other laws - for example the following:
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/feb/26/law-would-curtail-some-anti-abortion-protests/
If anti-war protesters and anti-torture protesters have to abide by some laws I see no reason why anti-choicers feel they should be exempt. Do you?