June 26, 2014 By: Juanita Jean Herownself Category: Uncategorized
The Supreme Court voted nine to zip today to strike down a buffer zone at abortion clinics. This allows nut to shadow women into the clinic screaming in her ears. This permits First Amendment shaming.
NARAL has an interesting picture.
Yep, The Supremes have a much, much larger buffer zone.
I wonder if they have a mirror.
Thanks to everybody for the heads up.
Welcome to The World's Most Dangerous Beauty Salon, Inc.
My name is Susan DuQuesnay Bankston. I live in Richmond, Texas, in the heart of Tom DeLay's old district. It's nuttier than squirrel poop here.
I am honored and privileged to know Miss Juanita Jean Herownself, hairdresser extraordinary and political maven. Since she does not have time to fiddle with this internet stuff, I type her website for her and you can read it if you want to. If you don't, she truly does not give a big bear's butt.
A lot of what I post here has to do with local politics, but you probably have the same folks in your local government.
This ain't a blog. Blogs are way too trendy for me. This is a professional political organization.
Maybe she needs to carry a gun to stand her ground? I am sure she will feel threatened. What then?
1At least Pete Williams on NBC tonight had the good sense to point out the SCOTUS buffer zone–while he was standing in it.
2Uh, and what about those “free speech zones” wherein protesters were kept out of Chimpy’s line of sight so as to not upset his delicate sensibilities?
3I’d like to be able to exercise my First Amendment rights on, say, Scalia from his car to his office building door, except that I’m sure there’s a parking garage under the building.
Someone elsewhere suggested picketing gun shops, harassing and yelling at people going in on legal business.
Someone else suggested a looming collision between this “free speech” outside clinics and “Stand your ground.”
4The Supremes are very sensitive. If you are allowed into the peanut gallery to witness their deliberations, you are forbidden to even whisper, lest you awaken Clarence the Sleeping Toad.
5This won’t last long. The clinic workers who meet the patients outside will be wearing wires and transmitting to recorders. The violent speech will be heard on all the news broadcasts and finally end up in court which will result in a completely different verdict. The screamers who occupy the sidewalk are definitely not there to help anyone but themselves and the recordings will prove it.
6maggie, I hope you’re right, but it occurs to me that taping the violent speech may be illegal even tough the violent speech itself is allowed.
7Maggie and LynnN:
it would work in states where you only have to have one party – at least – know that it’s being taped, right?
8Sister Artemis–Georgia is one of those states. When I was escorting one of the anti-choice “counselors” decided to get some evidence against me.
She stood near me, shouting “Stop hitting me, May! Don’t shove me out in traffic, May!” etc.
I just stood there, not saying a word. The tape she got wasn’t very useful to her.
9I got my idea from all those folks with video cameras and cameras on their cell phones. The video camera stuff often ends up on the tv news. The cell phone camera stuff can be tweeted and go viral. Actually, if there was a sign out in front of the clinic about security system audio and video, that might shut them up and clear them out permanently.
10Speaking personally,I would rather have an idiot with a handgun at least 35 feet away,a better chance for them to miss me,instead of allowing them point blank shots. Might I suggest they redraw the zone at thirty four feet eleven and seven eighths inches,wait for a new court decision and move the line one eighth of an inch closer until the justices decide what is appropriate. Then there is the [problem of satisfying one groups bloodlust at the expense of the other parties right not to be the objects of someone’s bloodlust. Did the women seeking services check their rights at the courthouse door? I guarantee you that wingnuts will completely disregard the buffer zone decision when it comes time to keeping lib demonstrators away from their candidates.
11What about using the “Stand your Ground” (if your state has one) law to protect yourself from violence as anti-abortionists think nothing of killing doctors or bystander’s?
12Seems to me that it would suffice to mark off the property line and call for the arrest for trespassing any crazy that blocks the entrance to your building. A simple “Please get off my property” should be all that’s needed to clear the area. After all, those protesters are all about respecting the “rights of others”, aren’t they?
13@Fred: Actually, kind of dreading the linkage between the ‘stand your ground’ thing and the idiot demonstrators around the few remaining clinics in Texas. I can imagine someone trying to ‘stage’ a person entering a clinic to be carrying a gun….then imagine the local yahoos who attend these protests with loaded pistols…. then the laws of physics coupled with the laws of stupidity.
14The Supremes have gone out of their way to make it hard to vote, hard for the president to fill vacancies and unbearable for women to avail themselves of medical services. You can bet that the Hobby Lobby case will end in making it hard for women to prevent pregnancy. The pattern represents a bias against women and minorities and must be challenged. Once again, old white men are
15calling the shots.
I think we need to picket and scream at people going into other clinics: fertility clinics, plastic surgery clinics, and especially “men’s clinics” (where they go to get their testosterone topped up and their blue pills.)
I have a deep, serious, moral objection to people having more children than God gives them naturally (speaking as a woman who could not have biological children and chose to obey God’s will and adopt), people who waste money on unnecessary chin tucks and then complain about taxes, and men who think they’re entitled to a stiffie whenever they want it. All unnatural, and therefore…OK, I”m sorta kidding but not much.
As for saying the 35 foot boundary interferes with free speech–exactly HOW? I can be heard 35 feet away. I can wave a sign from 35 feet away. What they’ve done is promote bullying, not free speech, and they’ve done it while protected themselves.
16SCOTUS carved out a very narrow niche here. They stated the abortion clinic protesters are “counselors” who want to gently, and with consent, advise the entering patients on their options. So all you other protesters who just want to scream at people, tough luck.
17E plat, forget 34′ 11 7/8″. Make the area the same as the no first amendment zone the Supremes have. It’s either constructional or it’s not.
18MaryL the Nine Nuts were so wrong with this decision. Quite simply any woman seeking medical attention should have more protection than the Cheney style bunker-ed down football field length protected numbskulls that decided this one.
Or, to flip the question, how would we guys feel visiting the proctology shop, maybe facing a follow-on with the oncology shop, if we had to run a gauntlet of women ‘suspicious’ we were at either location to score some Viagra?
First Amendment? Cool, sit in their representatives office to protest and stand away from the patient doctor privilege.
The Supreme Blunder Brigade really blew this decision.
19