"I didn’t breach the rules of the buffer zone – I didn’t harass, intimidate, or even seek to influence anyone. I simply stood there, available to speak with love and compassion. It isn’t right to deprive anyone of the right to take up my offer to talk. And it isn’t right to censor zones within our country from thoughts, beliefs and conversations that authorities may simply disapprove of. Buffer zones aren’t 'pro-choice' – they deprive women of the choice to have a chat outside the clinic. That isn’t right."
Said Rose Docherty, quoted in
"Grandmother arrested for holding sign offering conversation outside Scottish hospital performing abortions/'Buffer zones aren’t ‘pro-choice’ – they deprive women of the choice to have a chat outside the clinic,' Rose Docherty said" (Fox News).
Scotland's
The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act purports to forbid any "acts" that "Intentionally or recklessly influence someone’s decision to access, provide, or facilitate abortion services," expressly including "acts" that we Americans would consider speech: "attempts to persuade or dissuade someone through verbal communication, handing out leaflets with anti-abortion messages, or displaying signs intended to affect choices." It also forbids "acts" that "Cause Harassment, Alarm, or Distress," including "shouting, religious preaching directed at individuals, or silent vigils that target and emotionally affect those entering or leaving the facility."
Docherty's sign read "Coercion is a crime, here to talk if you want."
The linked news article concentrates on that second clause. Docherty was only making herself available for conversation, but apparently the government plans to argue that she
intended to to persuade women not to have abortions.
But let's also talk about "Coercion is a crime." Docherty may intend to persuade, but her sign hypothesizes the presence of another influencer of decision-making — a coercer. To suggest the idea — that man who's pressured you to give up your child deserves criminal prosecution — is to try to "emotionally affect" women who are seeking an abortion. That's active anti-abortion speech in the safe zone. That other influence — the coercer — has done his communicating somewhere else, presumably in what was the safe zone of their private life together.
Posts
36 comments:
I've been told one gets the government one voted for, and it appears this is one result.
The coercer is the Scottish government, not the man forcing the woman to get an abortion. The first clause is predicated on the second clause. She wants to talk about what brought the woman to the abortion clinic and, perhaps, whether this is indeed the best choice. But the government prevents her from doing that. That violation of speech and conscience is her main concern, not abortion.
that we Americans would consider speech
some Americans…
example 746518 of Why we Americans LEFT Britain
I guess Orwell’s “1984” isn’t required reading in school.
They now take life and their freedom
Informing women of other options is not pro-choice?
The pro-abortion services zone is coercive. The government has a religious cause to keep the woman affordable, available, reusable, and taxable. The man who is a friend with "benefits" has a compelling cause to coerce her to abort the "burden" and sequester it in a sanctuary state. The accessory to homicide has a monetary incentive to abort the child with Loving. The German socialists were progressive ahead of their liberal times.
Orwell’s “1984” was a religious text that would be banned as a pro-life, pro-chice, pro-woman, pro-liberty humanitarian obscenity in liberal societies past, present, and progressive. Transhumane philosophies and practices from ancient cults are entertained now in the open again.
Please don't respond to commenters that I always delete. If you name them, I need to delete you. If I deleted you here, please rewrite your comment, omitting the name.
And do not discuss my moderation policy here. You can go back to the last cafe if you want to raise the topic of how I am running this place. If you are a commenter whom I always delete, get a life.
Here's a question I asked Grok as I was writing this post: "What is the history of abortion opponents using the phrase 'Coercion is a crime.'" I don't want this blog to become a repository of A.I. writing, but feel free to cut and paste my question if you don't know the answer to it. The phrase is standard.
Huh. I've seen the headlines on this of course and I always thought she was declaring the law by saying "coercion is a crime." I never even considered that she might have been speaking about the people pressuring the pregnant woman into an abortion. That's why Althouse makes the big bucks.
How many women of child bearing age know the phrase I wonder.
Would they arrest a Satanist who is celebrating the fact that the women entering the facility are going to have an abortion?
Kevin said, "Informing women of other options is not pro-choice?"
That's different because shut up.
I also thought the coercion comment was aimed at the government.
Has the issue of coercion in abortion decisions been studied, or is it simply asserted on the pro-choice side that abortion is always (or at least mostly) a freely-made decision by the woman?
Shame that the Scottish people bent the knee to the anti-life totalitarians.
Scotland's The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act purports to forbid any "acts" that "Intentionally or recklessly influence someone’s decision [either way?] to access, provide, or facilitate abortion services," expressly including "acts" that we Americans would consider speech…
As written, the Act reads like it’s viewpoint neutral. But as applied, it appears entirely viewpoint discriminatory.
That long, scaly arm reaches out, yet I continue to be amazed at a population's blasé reaction to these transgressions as they work through that orderly progression. First, the passive removal of 'offensive' material from the public sphere, then the punishment and humiliation of those who dare to speak freely about the same, even if just in reference, then the criminalization and imprisonment of same. When will the next step come - the naming of the disfavored class, and the rounding up? It's coming, as regular as a rain forecast. They just haven't realized what they voted for, yet. And if their present course isn't clear, they probably won't come to this realization until it's irrelevant and the cattle cars are waiting. Hasn't even been 100 years, and here we are. Europe, again.
If “coercion” is not a crime, why was she arrested? It seems the concern is about coercing individuals to not have an abortion after they made up their mind to go to the clinic. She seems to be stating, “I’m not here to coerce you, because that would be a crime, just here for a chat” with fewer words to convey the message.
Reason #2,473,978,345 that we should be eternally grateful that our founders gave us the protections of the First Amendment, with the Second to back it up.
The Scots once had a well-deserved reputation for courage. Today Scottish courage is summed up in a grandmother with a sign. How many men did the Scottish police send to arrest her? Twenty? Thirty? In full SWAT gear, right?
A less fraught version can be found here https://www.ncregister.com/news/scottish-police-arrest-pro-lifer-outside-abortion-facility
In catholic register story above is probably the source material edited down from fox
Reasonable people can understand that a woman that has made a difficult decision should not be subjected to protestors screaming at her as she walks up to the clinic doors. How this has been expanded to people standing on a street corner quietly praying -- or even just thinking --is objectively ridiculous and shows that abortion is holy sacrament to The State. Compare this to how The State treats Jewish people going to their synagogue being actively harrased by people screaming epithets at them through bullhorns = crickets, because they are afraid of the Islamic Supremacists they have invited into their country.
If Ms. Docherty was a known advocate for Sharia Law and had been wearing a hijab, etc., I wonder how the police would would have handled this.
Is it coercion by the abortion industry or is it seduction? "Look. You have two choices. Option A. Abortion or option B having the baby. With option A you have so many conveniences. You don't have to lug that thing around for nine months and then take care of it afterwards. Snip, snip and you get to keep your figure and your lifestyle."
Turns out William Wallace fought and died for nothing.
expressly including "acts" that we Americans would consider speech
Don't we have virtually the same restrictions here in the USA?
Love is in the womb. The audacity. Sequester that female dog.
The Scottish Green Party has a compelling cause to reduce humanity's footprint and sequester the carbon forcing of climate change and dangerous environmental pollution. Where's the coercion?
"To suggest the idea — that man who's pressured you to give up your child deserves criminal prosecution — is to try to "emotionally affect" women who are seeking an abortion."
Who said it was a man pressuring women seeking an abortion--don't mothers or other women often pressure/encourage abortion? Also does every criminal act "deserve prosecution?" I can think of a number of things that are crimes that I wouldn't want to see prosecuted.
Packing several implicit arguments in this one, today.
Anyway the idea of a zone "safe," by force of law, from (non-disruptive, non-threatening) free speech is repugnant
Turns out William Wallace fought and died for nothing.
700 years of freedom ain't “nothing”—even if a much later generation does succumb to an evil ideology and fail to keep up the standard. Every new succeeding generation in a nation is an opportunity for barbarians to appear in their midst—and evil ideas, historically, have been incredibly destructive. As the saying goes: “The Past is a foreign country.” But that means that the Future is a foreign country, too—and all of us who have emerged from the past are in effect foreigners living within it.
One thing that having lived for more than 50 years of adult life provides, is an appreciation for how long a century is. It just ain't that long. (And from that, one can begin to obtain a glimmering toward how long a millennium is…) History is short.
The UK is woke toast for now. Soon Islam and Sharia law will rule. No more woke.
Scotland is a fascist shithole.
Post a Comment
Comments older than 2 days are always moderated. Newer comments may be unmoderated, but are still subject to a spam filter and may take a few hours to get released. Thanks for your contributions and your patience.