I am constantly telling my kids that they are judged not just by their actions, but by the company they keep. In other words, you can be punished for what your not-so-well-behaved friends do. In many ways, that parenting adage is consistent with the abortion protest “buffer zone” law that we have in Massachusetts. The statute, which bans protestors from coming with 35 feet of an abortion clinic. It is considered a “time, place and manner” regulation of speech; in other words, it doesn’t regulate the content of speech, only how (where) the speech is delivered. First Amendment precedent leaves more room for these content-neutral regulations, as long as they are furthering a legitimate government interest.
The government interest is where the “company you keep” comes into play. Massachusetts’ justification for this law is that it is necessary to protect the patients and employees of the clinics from harassment and physical danger. It was passed in response to a horrific shooting at two clinics in 1994. The plaintiffs in the current case argue that they don’t want to protest, and certainly don’t want to hurt anyone; all they want to do is, “engage in friendly conversations with women seeking abortions in an attempt to tell them they have alternatives.” (NY Times, Justices Seem Split…). But if my parenting adage holds true, the plaintiff has to suffer a restriction on her speech because some of the protestors on her side of the issue have become violent. To be fair, at times it is the clash of the two sides of protestors that creates the danger, so this isn’t all on the pro-life faction. That said, the law applies equally, regardless of the view expressed.
If you take the arguments as an indication, the Justices are split. Only Justice Roberts was silent, although he is considered a free speech advocate, having written the decision in Snyder v. Phelps, where the Court struck down a trial court verdict granting damages to the father whose son’s military funeral was subject to hateful protests by the Westboro Baptist Church. That case is a great illustration of the role of the First Amendment in our country: we protect speech that most of hate, so that when we are expressing views that may offend others, we are not censored. In other words, “free speech” is only meaningful if we protect speech we don’t like. This is a very difficult moral position for many, because organizations or people like the Westboro Baptist Church are so infuriatingly offensive to many of us.
Here, unlike with Westboro Baptist Church, who acts carefully to stay within the confines of the law and protest peacefully, we have a few bad apples that Massachusetts judged to be ruinous for all protestors. All the evidence from those who work and visit abortion clinics in Massachusetts shows that the atmosphere is much less stressful, and much safer, since the buffer zones went into place. But how do we balance safety with our need to protect one of our most important freedoms? Ethically, it is an impossible choice.
I try to keep my politics out of this blog (and my classroom), but sometimes I can’t help myself. I feel compelled here to make a point about the plaintiff’s desire here — to engage patients in a conversation to tell them they have alternatives. The idea of counseling patients is the justification for literally dozens of laws around this country ranging from requiring patients to look at ultrasound images before abortion to requiring patients to listen to the fetus’s heartbeat. As a woman, I find this purported need by protestors to educate women on their alternatives demeaning and patronizing. Despite the pro-life movement’s portrayal of abortion clinic patients as slutty young girls who use abortion as birth control, the reality is that most (not all, but most) women seeking abortions do not take this decision lightly. No one wants to be in a situation where they feel compelled to terminate a pregnancy, and to assume they don’t agonize over this decision is to assume they are stupid, ignorant, and unfeeling. Many women who want abortions have just been told their fetuses have birth defects, or suffer spousal abuse, or just don’t have enough money to raise another child. I respect that people have moral objections to terminating pregnancy in any situation, but to pretend they need to “educate” those women who ultimately conclude they want an abortion is specious and patronizing. We are not talking about doctors counseling patients on the risks of a medical procedure. This is an attempt to persuade, with the assumption that we don’t know any better.
5 Comments
Brian Carroll posted on January 16, 2014 at 11:40 am
I agree the adage you use here. People are absolutely judged by the company they keep. They’re also judged by the clothes they wear, the words they use, and a myriad other preferences they outwardly express. All of these things are signals, whether people realize it or not, and these signals can carry significant meaning.
Maybe people who want to “engage in friendly conversations with women seeking abortions in an attempt to tell them they have alternatives” are blind to the signals they’re sending. While they might have good intentions (or at least believe that their actions can only result in good), they might not fully understand what it means to be on the other side of the conversation.
Being approached by a member of a larger protesting group is threatening, and removing that threat is a bigger challenge than “engaging in friendly conversation.” Regardless of whether the conversation would be beneficial, or if the person engaging the conversation is qualified to start it, it is coming in the wrong place and at the wrong time.
Shannon Clark posted on January 17, 2014 at 8:43 am
I agree with the adage you’ve used. It made me think of a time in middle school when our recess was taken away because of the few “bad apples” who had misbehaved and taken up fighting during the recess. I remember sitting in the cafeteria in silence with the rest of my peers, fuming over the stupidity of my peers who had ruined recess for the rest of us.
Looking back on it, I understand the principal’s decision. His rule, much like the law, was a preventative measure. It’s so easy for peers to influence one another, for a few bad apples to spoil the whole barrel. Who’s to say that more of us wouldn’t join the recess fights, or that the “friendly conversations” of protestors won’t turn into harassment and physical violence? After all, it’s happened before. Passions tend to get the best of us. When our views are challenged or our passion incited, it only takes a split second for those passions to turn into harsher action. The protestors aren’t being stripped of their right to free speech and expression. The Massachusetts buffer zone law is instead a preventative measure and a compromise. It is allowing the protestors to continue to express their opinions, while still protecting and respecting the rights and personal space of abortion clinic patients.
Jonathan Goodlow posted on January 17, 2014 at 9:20 am
I remember when I used to contract in California, I would use some of Planned Parenthood’s services because they were basically free. Protestors would march in the entryway to the parking lot, slow you down, yell at you, etc. I found it funny because clearly I wasnt pregnant, yet they were still yelling at me. Deep in the back of their minds, I think they mean well, but I think that some people just need something to hate. Honestly, sometimes I wonder if a lot of these people have day jobs because I would see the same groups of people there 3-4 days a week when driving by.
Oneyoung Choi posted on January 17, 2014 at 4:33 pm
People tend to take an action based on their interests. Then, it could be hard for them to judge something not by the company’s interests since where they belong to could be the foundation of themselves. However, people cannot consistently insist their own interests. This is because the world is not just composed of them. There are always other parties to be considered.
About the issue of abortion, I am not favor of abortion. However, there could be so many reasons that pregnant women need to consider the abortion. If we could understand the situation, it would be not easy to say ‘No Abortion’ without any excuses.
Chen Shi posted on January 18, 2014 at 10:30 am
Instead of arguing about whether abortion is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable, we need to look at the root cause of abortion. As professor mentioned, “Many women who want abortions have just been told their fetuses have birth defects, or suffer spousal abuse, or just don’t have enough money to raise another child.” In order to decrease women’s likelihood to choose abortion, and decrease the possibility to mistakenly abandon a health fetues, doctors are responsible for giving accurate diagnosis, families should give full suport to the women financially and mentally. No mothers are willing to give up their children. But for the benefit of their children, sometimes they have to.