Go to PRIVACY TO DO WHAT?
- Add a comment
- Go to 'CHOICE v. LIFE
Great post
posted by
Gheeghee
on May 3, 2004 at 1:39 PM
| link to this | reply
Abortion is a unique issue. If you care to, check out my new post "Life v. Liberty." Maybe you'll understand that privacy is a real part of this enigma, and that even Justice Blackmun supported abortion on demand bugt tried to balance those two "unalienable" rights.
posted by
Eric-Charles
on May 1, 2004 at 9:46 PM
| link to this | reply
HeNateMe-The problem with Face
is that it singles out a particular group and limits freedom of assembly for that one group.The name implies that it is safeguarding the ability of abortion clinic patrons to enter freely, without people trying to bar their way. But the law reads that any single protester may not be within 300 hundred feet of the entrance, regardless of whether they are actually impeding someone's access. Even on a public sidewalk. No big deal?
What if anti-war protesters(and only them) were, by Federal injunction, required to stay off the sidewalks in front of a federal building? There would be such an outcry and rightly so. The constitution is suppose to protect the rights of all groups to freedom of assembly. Sure, there are laws about getting permits for such things and of course, blocking access intentionally will get you arrested but this law goes beyond that. If there are protesters standing outside a clinic, not blocking the entrance how is a clinic patron's access denied or impeded? And to make this a federal offense which could carry more jail time than rape? Come on!!
This is bad enough for what it is but I shudder to think what it means for the future. It is an assault on th liberties of a particular group and the Constitution itself.
posted by
AnCatubh
on May 1, 2004 at 1:58 AM
| link to this | reply
If you are going to DROP comments on my blogs you could respond to my question back to you. What is your beef with FACE?
posted by
HeNateMe
on April 30, 2004 at 5:31 PM
| link to this | reply