well, this is enraging.

"In an oral argument, some justices said they were concerned that the law restricts speech in a way that is not neutral among viewpoints: Clinic workers can talk to patients inside the buffer, while those who object to abortion cannot."

ok. since when is the decision to have an abortion a collective one? since when is it open to community debate?

the patient did not come to the clinic to have a debate, she came to the clinic to carry out a medical procedure. the idea only makes sense if it's thought that the doctor is presenting an argument and trying to win the patient over. to the contrary: the patient made an independent decision to carry out an autonomous action. to suggest there should be neutrality and debate is preposterously oppressive.

this is where the canadian bill of rights proves itself superior, by bringing in the concept of the security of the person. i'm not aware of a ruling on the subject, but, theoretically, in canadian law, this kind of protest would be infringing upon the patient's constitutional right to not be harassed by a bunch of idiots. i'm not aware of a similar concept in the american bill of rights.

"They also said that “calm, respectful, individualized offers of emotional and practical support” cannot be effectively communicated through a bullhorn from 35 feet away."

THEY DON'T WANT YOUR SUPPORT. THEY WANT YOU TO LEAVE THEM ALONE.

that's the kind of "support" you get from an abusive boyfriend.

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/supreme-court-skeptical-of-buffer-zone-outside-clinics-providing-abortions