Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

More Leftist Hypocrisy: The MSA 11 vs. Laws Restricting Abortion Clinic Protests

More Leftist Hypocrisy: The MSA 11 vs. Laws Restricting Abortion Clinic Protests

Several nights ago, I found myself arguing with a hyperpriviledged, self-identified anarcho-socialist (don’t ask me how that works) about the MSA 11.  He and his friends believed them to have been convicted by a racist Orange County jury, under unconstitutional laws.

As we were discussing the constitutionality of political “speech” that made it physically impossible for others to exercise their 1st Amendment rights, an inconsistency occurred to me: It is federal crime for protesters to interfere with the provision of abortions, and the legal hook is that abortion is a federally-protected right.

I suspect that many who defend the MSA 11 are also very supportive of the Free Access To Clinic Entrances (FACE) act, which reads:

This statute prohibits (1) the use of force or threat of force or physical obstruction, to intentionally injure, intimidate or interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person or any class of persons from obtaining or providing reproductive health services;

Surely, systematically disrupting, interrupting, and shouting down a speaker is a form of physical obstruction analogous to blocking the entrances of abortion clinics. I guess that despite only being read into the constitution by a chain of precedents that sounds like a game of telephone, abortion is a more important right to some than the first Amendment, the bedrock rights without which the rest cannot function.

(Addendum:  I do believe that blocking roads, trespassing, or otherwise illegally and unreasonably interfering with other individuals performing legal actions should be treated as a crime regardless of the cause of the protesters. Either follow the rule of law or perform real civil disobedience – the kind with consequences.)

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Agree totally with your addendum. As a corollary, I would suggest that vandalism committed by Union activists should be prosecuted as vandalism. Much of the reception you will get crossing a picket line would be considered assault in other circumstances.

Either we are a nation of laws, or we aren’t. Sadly, it is increasingly clear we aren’t.

I think the power to make a decision on the question of abortion was read OUT of the ambit of the Federal government, and that the existence of the FACE act is yet one more reason to be glad of it.

The FACE act was and is unnecessary, because while speech is free, actions that constitute assault, intimidation, and false imprisonment are not. These are all causes of action under state law. However, people who wanted to DO SOMETHING decided to make this a Federal cause of action. The end result is to raise the costs of those who disagree, and allow the Federal government to encroach on a state’s law. The excuse, at bottom, is that the states are not to be trusted to safeguard the rights of their citizens to be free of physical assault. The purpose is to bankrupt those who would otherwise make a regular practice of expressing their opposition in a location of their choice.

So, what happens when the people who want to DO SOMETHING decide that they need to control medical costs? Especially if the Federal government is now paying for everybody’s medical costs?

In my opinion, we will see rules proposed to encourage a decision to abort children who fail some sort of prenatal test within our lifetimes. The mechanism will be refusal to pay for medical care or other benefits. Then we will watch all those “pro-choice” people become “anti-irresponsible reproduction” or somesuch.

Call it what you will, but Roe v. Wade will ultimately function to keep our Federal government from wholesale slaughter of our children. At least now, the decision is made on a case-by-case basis, by the individual. It is the lesser of evils, in an imperfect world.

I’ve yet to see a way around this problem.

Sadly, we have reached (surpassed?) the point where “some animals [people, groups, laws, rights, etc] are more equal than others”.

OK, Prof Jacobson, explain something to this Engineer.

“This statute prohibits (1) the use of force or threat of force or physical obstruction, to intentionally injure, intimidate or interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person or any class of persons from obtaining or providing reproductive health services;”

When is it NOT prohibited to use “force or threat of force….”. Isn’t that already illegal except in narrow circumstances–such as self defense?

Even if you agree with this law, why was it necessary?

Re: the MSA 11:

Forget Kansas … what the hell ever happened to UC Irvine???

    LukeHandCool in reply to LukeHandCool. | October 5, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    One long day of brain farts today.

    I meant, Forget Kansas … what the hell is the matter with UC Irvine???

      UCI, in my view, with few exceptions is the natural result of “incestuous” interbreeding between progressives and elites. Virtually genetically identical, each tribal generation’s offspring drifted further down from the moronic level, drawing ever closer to imbecilic. At last, at UCI, the generations seem to have coalesced. That’s the staff. Students are lower still.

Don’t forget to take into account the fact that any ‘anarcho-socialist’ is bound to despise the fact that we have a Constitution at all. Its standing in the way of the Totalalitarian State they want to impose on us.

To a socialist, ‘constitutional’ means whatever they want it to mean at the moment they reference it. Nothing more. Whatever you do, don’t try to hold them accountable for their words or actions – they’ll become hopelessly confused and are likely to call you a fascist.

Is Pasadena Phil OK?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend