To the Editor:
Remembering the dangers and difficulties women encountered before Roe v. Wade, I am a passionate supporter of a woman's right to choose. I don’t favor abortions; I simply acknowledge the reality that abortions will be performed, and believe the procedure should be as safe as possible for every potential patient. A woman’s right to choose a safe abortion is threatened in too many states, but I had thought that Massachusetts was not among them. The attacks have begun here in the guise of very disturbing legislation supported by State Representative Jim Lyons.
The legislation, House Bill 2239, consists of one sentence. It would repeal our state law creating a 35-foot safety zone around facilities that provide abortions. This modest "buffer zone" protects women and staff from protesters who excessively harass patients and employees.
Unfortunately, experience has shown that when protestors have not been prevented from encroaching on access to these clinics, both patients and employees have been subject to physical attacks. Retaining the 35-foot buffer zone does not muzzle protesters; but eliminating it creates the real possibility that Massachusetts women will be subject to potentially dangerous confrontations.
It is alarming that Jim Lyons has made this bill a priority. That such legislation could attract any support in Massachusetts is a wake-up call. Lyons is the current representative of my district, but he does not represent the best interest of women.
Rebecca Backman
Bryan McGonigle2
9:54 am on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
I'm torn on this one.
We have laws against harassment and loitering (I assume) but these laws aren't good enough or aren't enforced as well as they should or both. So we create more laws by creating special areas where harassment or loitering are EVEN MORE against the law. I'm in favor of fewer laws and enforcing the ones we have, but I'm also in favor of less harassment.
I can think of voting locations (where those guys with the signs can affect traffic going into and out of the high school but they better not mess with our walk between our car and the school) as another area . And do not call lists and debt collectors phone calls are sort of a virtual area with special harassment restrictions. On some college campuses, they do the opposite - create a special harassment area called a free a speech zone.
Patrick Rahilly
2:12 pm on Friday, October 19, 2012
In this case, safety of the person trumps the First Amendment so I do agree with creating a buffer zone. 35 feet is not that far away and people can certainly hear the chants, listen to the banter and see the signs. But, most importantly, it creates a physical distance between the person and protesters to ensure that the person is not physically harmed.
Bill Kelly
3:43 pm on Friday, October 19, 2012
I Agree with Mr. Rahilly, safety should be first in these situations and demonstrators who feel strongly about this issue can still voice their oppostion but they can't get in somebody's face to express it. This is a civil rights issue no matter how you feel about a woman's right to chose. I am glad to see that Mr. Rahilly a former Republican Senate candidate has a practical viewpoint about this issue.
Bryan McGonigle2
4:27 pm on Friday, October 19, 2012
How about a union picket line? They seem to be designed to harass people - make you fearful of crossing the "line". If safety is the first priority, you could argue that picket lines should be outlawed or that they need to be so far back from an employers entrance that its no longer a picket line.
Bill Kelly
7:41 pm on Friday, October 19, 2012
If I am not mistaken Mike, there is usually uniformed police at a picket line and people do get arrested if they break the law, but they still have the right to picket within the bounds of the law. No they aren't usually in the plant or on company property but like the anti- abortion people they can still be seen or heard but not in somebody's face. Again the folks get to exercise their right to free speech but not so much to violate somebody's else rights.
Since you are on the comparison trail what about the wackos from the Westboro Baptist Church who shout their homophobic rants at the funerals of our fallen military heroes. They still get to spew their hatred but at a safe distance from the mourners. Amen for that and laws to govern a civilized society
Bryan McGonigle2
8:23 pm on Friday, October 19, 2012
Who pays for the uniformed officer at the picket line? Is it the employer, the picketers, or is it the public? I'm guessing its the employer in most cases.
Bill Kelly
9:00 pm on Friday, October 19, 2012
We all pay for public safety one way or another.
salemst
9:24 am on Monday, October 22, 2012
If one woman changes her mind about having an abortion on her way into a clinic, the "sidewalk counselors" have succeeded in saving a life.
As long as there's no violence and women aren't physically impeded from entering a clinic, I have no problem without a buffer zone.
Does Rebecca care more about women's lady parts having the right to kill their unborn baby, or their brain parts finding/having access to a quality private sector job they can support themself or their family with while keeping more of their hard earned money?
Barbara L'Italien will fight to ensure women can have an abortion 24 x 7, whereas Jim Lyons will fight to ensure women can find private sector jobs.
In his fighting for jobs creation including for women are you, Rebecca, thus arguing Lyons is fighting against women? How do you arrive at this conclusion?
Patrick Rahilly
1:44 pm on Friday, October 26, 2012
You can't honestly say that with no buffer zone the protesters won't block the entryway. That's giving zealots an awful lot of credit that I am not willing to give. I have seen near fistfights at picket lines and thats over a job, imagine what would happen with no buffer zone and its regarding a life. The buffer zone wouldn't be there just to protect the person to go to the clinic, but it protects the doctors, the staff and their personal property (ie vehicles) from being harmed and damaged.
Again, this is one the few times in my life that I believe something trumps the First Amendment.
salemst
4:45 pm on Friday, October 26, 2012
Of all the issues to vote over, honestly, this issue must be number 153 in importance on my list.
I hope everyone in consternation mentally anguished about this issue has a well paying job and plenty of money to support their families.
If this is your priority in voting, life must be awfully good for you.
L'Italien's tax increases in the past and the ones she'll raise if she's elected hurt me far more and impact my vote more than a woman killing her baby walking by some pro life sidewalk conselors