Many people are confused by the unanimous Supreme Court decision striking down buffer zones at abortion clinics. This includes The New York Times and Madville Times.
The confusion comes from the justifications for the decision which seem totally unaware of the history behind the buffer zones and the nature of the confrontations that they were designed to prevent.
The decision totally ignores an issue that Judge Louis Brandeis made an essential judicial consideration: the right to be left alone.
In this decision, one suspects that the judiciary decided not to seem obstinately and stupidly locked in partisan obstruction and lifted their robes and stuck their heads up each others’ butts to get alternative perspectives. There seems no other way to explain such an inadequately rendered decision.
Justice Roberts who wrote the decision says, ”petitioners are not protestors; they seek not merely to express their opposition to abortion, but to engage in personal, caring, consensual conversations with women about various alternatives.” This statement is a semantic boondoggle. When people show up at an abortion clinic to approach patients and try to “persuade” them not to terminate a pregnancy, that act is a protest.
The issue is one of the right of people to go about their personal business without being impeded or interfered with by other people. When a women is about to enter a clinic, whether for reasons of health issues or to have an abortion, she is in a state of mind concerning her own well-being. If she is to have an abortion, she has made a decision about the viability of her own life, a decision that providers stress is never made lightly or without deliberation and consideration. The last thing she needs is to be approached by some fatuous and presumptuous ass for a “personal, caring, consensual conversation about various alternatives.” A buffer zone provides the fatuous asses with the right to try to engage the women within an audible range, but it also provides space so that the women can go about their personal business without a personal impediment interfering with their access. It grants them the right to be left alone in a stressful moment.
The rhetoric of Supreme Court decisions has deteriorated into stark propaganda at the minds and hands of the conservative element on the court. First of all, it isn’t rhetoric. It is popular to call any form of political communication rhetoric. But to qualify as real rhetoric, an argument must be advanced on meticulously documented facts and rigorous logic and reasoning. Recent decisions, such as the abolishment of buffer zones and the and Hobby Lobby decision are examples of faulty information and slovenly reasoning. The Hobby Lobby decision is incoherent, as Justice Aiito flounders about in trying to grasp at arguments to support the prejudicial doctrine preferred by the conservative justices. Ultimately, the court has rested much of its recent decisions upon the concept that corporations are persons, which effectually gives corporations the right to dictate the terms of life for real persons. Conservatives like rule by corporate dictatorship, and detest the liberal notion of individuals determining how they wish to live their own lives. The Hobby Lobby decision removes the right of women to determine what is covered by their health insurance.
Consistently of late, the SCOTUS is abolishing the right to be left alone. Andi it is trying to force our heads up Alito's and Robert's lower colons.