The U.S. Supreme Court’s
decision Thursday in
McCullen v. Coakley quickly provoked a fair amount of
outrage. The case concerned a Massachusetts law creating a 35-foot
buffer zone around abortion clinics, in which protestors could not
tread. Anti-abortion activist Eleanor McCullen argued—and
Supreme Court justices unanimously agreed—that the buffer zones
were an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. But the
court’s decision was narrow in scope, rejecting not the idea of
buffer zones per se but the way this particular
Massachusetts law was written.
“For a problem shown to arise only once a week in one city at
one clinic, creating 35-foot buffer zones at every clinic across
the Commonwealth is hardly a narrowly tailored solution,” wrote
Chief Justice John Roberts, in an opinion cosigned by the court’s
four liberal justices (the other justices offered concurring
opinions). Roberts suggested that a small buffer zone or a less
broad law might pass muster.
The decision seems like one that should appease folks on both
side of the issue, if not necessarily thrill them. The court was
careful to balance the safety interests of abortion clinic patients
and staff with First Amendment rights.
Here’s how Cenk Uygur, host of the progressive political
commentary program The Young
Turks responded:
“You’re gonna yell at those women making the toughest decision
of their lives — a choice that’s between them, their doctor, and
having nothing to do with you or big government or your so-called
god, which might not be their god? Well, you tell me every day that
I’ve got Second Amendment rights. I guess in Massachusetts,
Colorado, [and] Montana, those women have to show up with their
guns and be like, ‘Okay, you’ve got rights. You’ve got a right to
get in my face; I’ve got a right to stand my ground, right?’ I
mean, that’s what I’m told by conservatives day in and day
out.”
Oof, so much mess to unpack there. First, Uygur seems to suggest
that being against a woman’s legal right to make her own medical
decisions is somehow anti “big government.” Because this makes so
obviously little sense, I’m going to suggest that Uygur is just
throwing in “big government” there as a dog whistle for the kind of
people who think wanting to limit government power is some sort of
nutty, extremist idea.
Moving on to the meat of Uygur’s comments here: Why, yes, women
seeking abortions do also have second amendment rights. If they
feel physically unsafe heading to an abortion clinic, they could
very well bring along a gun. And if they needed it for self
defense, they could use that gun. If they chose to wave said gun in
the face of people peacefully protesting, they would be subject to
the same punishments as anyone who recklessly brandishes and
threatens people with a gun.
I am not sure what is controversial about this. And I would
assume that most conservatives, even extremely anti-abortion
conservatives, believe that even women seeking abortions have
Second Amendment rights. That is the thing about constitutional
rights in this country: They apply even to people you don’t like.
Liberals may not like protesters like McCullen, but that doesn’t
mean she doesn’t have First Amendment rights. And for the First
Amendment to mean anything, it has to be interpreted broadly.
I think people like McCullen are scum, but I’m sure she’d think
the same about me. If I was the type inclined to theatrics, I may
choose to go protest her protests, to stand by her side advocating
for reproductive rights–and I can’t imaging many liberals
having trouble with this. But if we create a free speech paradigm
where McCullen’s words and actions are illegal, than so would mine
be. And a government big enough to arbitrarily suppress speech
that’s distasteful is also a government big enough to strip away
any sorts of rights, including the reproductive rights liberals are
so vociferously defending here.
When I wrote about this issue for another publication in
January, I admit that I had a different viewpoint. But I wasn’t
fully grasping the free speech implications then, and the more I’ve
read about the case, the more I’ve come around. For people
dedicated to the health and safety of those entering abortion
clinics, I understand why the buffer zones may seem like an
appealing idea. But only if you consider them solely within this
context. If people want the right to protest outside Monsanto or
the Westboro Baptist Church or wherever else, than McCullen and her
ilk has to be allowed to protest outside abortion
clinics.
Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal
asks, “why must harassment, initimidation, and terror have to
be endured before women’s constitutional rights are protected? But
“harassment
and intimidation are already against the law, quite correctly,”
as a surprisingly cogent New York Daily News editorial
notes.
In New York State, it is specifically illegal to use or threaten
force to injure, intimidate or interfere with access to abortion
clinics. In New York City, an especially powerful law makes it a
crime “to follow and harass another person within 15 feet of the
premises of a reproductive health care facility.”Massachusetts went far beyond that.
Thuggery is a crime. Speech, even loud and impassioned speech,
is the sometimes uncomfortable consequence of living in a free
society.
Anyway, here’s the whole Uygur segment, if you’re feeling like a
dose of outraged, disingenuous smarm:
h/t Chanelle Johnson
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1yUKMOn
via IFTTT