OUTSIDE THEIR HOMES? Just for being involved in construction?

Every time I think I'm inured to the tactics of anti-choicers, something new comes along to make me weep.

What is most revolting about the tactics of these pro-baby, pro-family groups was when they had their own children lay down in front of vehicles trying to enter one clinic.

That planned clinic looks awesome. I have never seen a Planned Parenthood clinic that looks so great.

Sadly, this kind of protest on public property such as streets and sidewalks outside private homes and businesses is legal, revolting as they are. This is one situation where I would not regret First Amendment rights being restricted.

At least their awful tactics turn people into Planned Parenthood supporters... right? I am quickly losing the last shreds of respect I had for pro-lifers.

This is what really frightens me about these Christian fundamentalist movements, above all of the crazy protesting methods:

They actually think that they have a divine entitlement to do this stuff.

Frankly, it's an attack of the rights of women, but anyone who's on this website already knows that.

The fact of the matter is that these people believe that they know what God wants and will stop at nothing to get it, whether that means killing, destroying families or whatever.

I just finished Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven" and it actually made me more afraid of the fundamentalist Christian movement than the FLDS groups, because it just shows what these groups might do.

If you are going to picket a guys house for trying to make a living, I don't know what to say to that.

I'm an atheist, and I think that Christians are responsible for destroying much of the integrity of the modern society, but I don't get together with my atheist friends and pickett churches on Sundays, we don't show pictures of the people killed every year by Christian fundamentalists outside of the Deacon's house.

Respect for personal freedom is someething that these groups lack, and they're selfrighteous enough to believe that they don't have to answer to anyone about the methods they use to accomplish their goals.

Even if God came down and told these people they were wrong, I don't think they'd listen. They're just that ridiculous.

Despite my religious upbringing, they lost my respect when they started their campaign of publicly displaying their photos*. In one news video, I saw a man complaining to that director, or whoever he is, about their billboard truck showing a bloodied fetus. "Yes, disgusting isn't it?" replied the pro-life guy. No, not that abortion is disgusting, you deliberately showing that blown up picture on trucks, signs and posters for all to see even if they did not want to, is what was disgusting. Dick.

*Magazine ads, where they can at least filter their audience, ok.

Thanks for reminding me that I have to make a donation to Planned Parenthood.

One of the suggested searches for this video is "innocent children."

Then again, another one is "quiet suburb," and that's almost funny enough to cancel out the creepiness.

A male: I agree totally about the fetus pictures used in protests. What bugs me about it is the argument is, "Ew! Abortion is gross!"

The people who protest at these things are a microscopic percentage of those who consider themselves "pro-life." Surely we can agree that people on either fringe are a little over-zealous to the point of being a bit scary?

"What bugs me about it is the argument is, 'Ew! Abortion is gross!'"

Well, it is gross, which is one reason I don't like it. That should be no reason in and of itself to be for or against abortion, which is why that campaign is nothing but offensive, particularly when used on children. I don't like "gross" open brain surgery either, but if I ever needed it, I'd get it in a second. And I would assist in an abortion, for education if nothing else. I can get over "gross." Whoever thought I would be removing crusted feces out of a multitude of adult cracks and crevices, suctioning secretions, or cleaning up adult sized accidents?

Surely we can agree that people on either fringe are a little over-zealous to the point of being a bit scary?

If you can find me examples of the pro-choice fringe who put their own children in harm's way by having them lie down in front of buses, put anti-abortion leaders' personal contact info up on the internet on "wanted" posters, murder anti-abortion activists, physically prevent people from gaining access to churches, crisis pregnancy centers, and/or anti-abortion headquarters, follow those involved in the construction of such edifices to their homes and picket/harrass them, spread deliberate lies about pregnancy and childbirth, steal private medical records and call people at home, or set up shop outside a crisis pregnancy center/church/other anti-abortion headquarters with a telephoto lens and photograph people entering and leaving as well as their license plate numbers, then sure, we can agree on that.

Until you do, nope.

The people who protest at these things are a microscopic percentage of those who consider themselves "pro-life." Surely we can agree that people on either fringe are a little over-zealous to the point of being a bit scary?

Ben- I have yet to hear of even the most ardent, dedicated pro-choice activist shooting anti-abortionists in their homes or threatening their family. We don't drag women into abortion clinics and force them to terminate pregnancies. Neither do we terroize the anti-abortionists' families or children with bloody pictures of women who died in childbirth as a result of lack of access to safe abortions or health care. We are ardent PRO-CHOICE belivers- you have your own choice to make- whatever that choice is is yours and yours alone. Anti-abortionists have already made the choice for you and don't seem to have a problem terrorizing you and your coworkers, friends and family for going against THEIR plan of what is right for you. So, I can't agree with your arguement that zealous pro-choice activists are just as scary as zealous anti-abortionists.

Heh, a male, exactly. Changing babies' diapers and cleaning up vomit isn't exactly my idea of a floral arrangement, but I do it whenever the situation arises, because some things are more important than "ew, gross." Honestly, most things are more important than "ew, gross," in my opinion.

Damn EG, you beat me to it :) Nice post.

That makes me so angry, I don't even have anything coherent to say. Who the? What the? How the?

Lame!!!!

It says there's nothing there :( I really wanna watch it. :,(

"some things are more important than 'ew, gross.' Honestly, most things are more important than 'ew, gross,' in my opinion."

When I was much younger, I liked clean to an obsessive degree. If I touched something dirty, dusty, or especially, oily, I had to wash my hands as soon as possible. I also didn't share food if it or the silverware had touched someone's lips. My mother was as tolerant as she could be.

Well being in an adult relationship, and caring for infants certainly changed my mind. It was like the Eddie Murphy routine on new parents being fascinated by the unique qualities of babies' "poo."

"physically prevent people from gaining access to churches"

What do you mean, like saying they are no longer welcome in the house of teh Lord(tm)?

They're dumb. They don't even know what they're protesting, and they don't even know how to do it. Their entire argument is based on lies. The pictures they show of "abortions" are still-births. If they're going to tell people that abortion "rips the arms and legs off of babies," then how come every "abortion" picture they show is of a completely intact, fully developed baby? The protesters have either been duped by the leadership of these organizations (which is a great possibility), or these people don't care that they're lying to people (which is also a great possibility).

"Sadly, this kind of protest on public property such as streets and sidewalks outside private homes and businesses is legal, revolting as they are. This is one situation where I would not regret First Amendment rights being restricted."

Well, I would. It's a question of what you value more: your right not to have to deal with public harassment from those you disagree with, or your right to publicly harass those same people when you disagree with them on an issue you find important enough to protest. Like, say, restricting abortion rights. It has to go both ways.

If they touch you, throw things at you, or scream threats at you, they can be arrested. But for holding up those disgusting signs in public? No. They have every right to do that, and they should have every right to do that.

Of course, we also have every right to call them on their disgusting hypocrisy when they do. :)

Isn't this sort of like stalking, though? That's illegal, why wouldn't this be illegal as well? It's not like these are public officials, or leaders of industry or anything.

What about local noise ordinances - at what hours are they chanting/etc.? I have a hard time believing that anyone can just pick up a sign and start harassing their fellow private citizens at will without some recourse on the other side.

This seems to be the relevant Colorado statute (edited to only show the appropriate clauses for this situation):

http://www.wiredsafety.org/cyberstalking_harassment/us_states/colorado.html

18-9-111 - Harassment - stalking.

(1) A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she:

(c) Follows a person in or about a public place; or

(g) Makes repeated communications at inconvenient hours that invade the privacy of another and interfere in the use and enjoyment of another's home or private residence or other private property; or

(4) (a) The general assembly hereby finds and declares that stalking is a serious problem in this state and nationwide. Although stalking often involves persons who have had an intimate relationship with one another, it can also involve persons who have little or no past relationship. A stalker will often maintain strong, unshakable, and irrational emotional feelings for his or her victim, and may likewise believe that the victim either returns these feelings of affection or will do so if the stalker is persistent enough. Further, the stalker often maintains this belief, despite a trivial or nonexistent basis for it and despite rejection, lack of reciprocation, efforts to restrict or avoid the stalker, and other facts that conflict with this belief. A stalker may also develop jealousy and animosity for persons who are in relationships with the victim, including family members, employers and co-workers, and friends, perceiving them as obstacles or as threats to the stalker's own "relationship" with the victim. Because stalking involves highly inappropriate intensity, persistence, and possessiveness, it entails great unpredictability and creates great stress and fear for the victim. Stalking involves severe intrusions on the victim's personal privacy and autonomy, with an immediate and long-lasting impact on quality of life as well as risks to security and safety of the victim and persons close to the victim, even in the absence of express threats of physical harm. The general assembly hereby recognizes the seriousness posed by stalking and adopts the provisions of this subsection (4) and subsections (5) and (6) of this section with the goal of encouraging and authorizing effective intervention before stalking can escalate into behavior that has even more serious consequences.

(b) A person commits stalking if directly, or indirectly through another person, such person knowingly:

(I) Makes a credible threat to another person and, in connection with such threat, repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, or places under surveillance that person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship; or

(II) Makes a credible threat to another person and, in connection with such threat, repeatedly makes any form of communication with that person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship, regardless of whether a conversation ensues; or

(III) Repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, places under surveillance, or makes any form of communication with another person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress and does cause that person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship to suffer serious emotional distress. For purposes of this subparagraph (III), a victim need not show that he or she received professional treatment or counseling to show that he or she suffered serious emotional distress.

(c) For the purposes of this subsection (4):

(I) Conduct "in connection with" a credible threat means acts which further, advance, promote, or have a continuity of purpose, and may occur before, during, or after the credible threat;

(II) "Credible threat" means a threat, physical action, or repeated conduct that would cause a reasonable person to be in fear for the person's safety or the safety of his or her immediate family or of someone with whom the person has or has had a continuing relationship. Such threat need not be directly expressed if the totality of the conduct would cause a reasonable person such fear.

(III) "Immediate family" includes the person's spouse and the person's parent, grandparent, sibling, or child; and

(IV) "Repeated" or "repeatedly" means on more than one occasion.

(5) Where a person commits stalking under paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of this section, the following shall apply:

(a) A person commits a class 5 felony for a first offense.

(a.5) For a second or subsequent offense, if such offense occurs within seven years of the date of a prior offense for which such person was convicted, the offender commits a class 4 felony.

(b) If, at the time of the offense, there was a temporary or permanent restraining order, injunction, or condition of bond, probation, or parole or any other court order in effect against such person prohibiting the behavior described in paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of this section, such person commits a class 4 felony. In addition, when a violation under subsection (4) of this section is committed in connection with a violation of a court order, including but not limited to any restraining order or any order that sets forth the conditions of a bond, any sentence imposed for such violation pursuant to this subsection (5) shall run consecutively and not concurrently with any sentence imposed pursuant to section contempt proceeding for violation of the court order. Nothing in this paragraph (b) shall be construed to alter or diminish the inherent authority of the court to enforce its orders through civil or criminal contempt proceedings; however, before a criminal contempt proceeding is heard before the court, notice of the proceedings shall be provided to the district attorney for the district of the court where the proceedings are to be heard and the district attorney for the district of the court where the alleged act of criminal contempt occurred. The district attorney for either district shall be allowed to appear and argue for the imposition of contempt sanctions.

(6) A peace officer shall have a duty to respond as soon as reasonably possible to a report of stalking and to cooperate with the alleged victim in investigating such report.

SO...the proper response to this on the part of the person being harassed is to document that they are there repeatedly, preventing the enjoyment of their private residence, and since they state quite baldly that they believe these people to be "complicit" in Planned Parenthood's so-called "crimes" and will do anything to stop them...hey, credible threat. Sounds like they have a strong case for at least the misdemeanor charge - and if they keep it up, they'll build a case for the felony charge. Send them straight to jail for their tactics!

Can I second the objection to the iWife banner ads on the main page?

My "a bit scary" reference didn't mean to include things like murder and violence (or other criminal behavior) - I was referring to obstreperous and offensive protesters, which I thought was the point of the original post. My apologies for the confusion - I should have been more clear.

"If they touch you, throw things at you, or scream threats at you, they can be arrested. But for holding up those disgusting signs in public? No. They have every right to do that, and they should have every right to do that."

Can they be arrested? Of course not. But a police line or private security could keep them away, for the sake of security. And I wouldn't want my children exposed to such garbage so close to my house or workplace where they cannot be avoided.

"Isn't this sort of like stalking, though? That's illegal, why wouldn't this be illegal as well?"

Unless it's designated different or privately owned, roads and sidewalks are public property, even in front of a private home or business. Pro-choice groups could theoretically give pro-lifers the same treatment at their own homes and offices, though I would not.

I see you're doing your homework. But in addition to being no apparent legal recourse in this clinic's situation, we have seen how some pro-lifers have no regard for the law or other human lives.

"f they're going to tell people that abortion "rips the arms and legs off of babies," then how come every "abortion" picture they show is of a completely intact, fully developed baby?"

They could be referring to dilation and evacuation (D+E)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_evacuation

Well, the pictures I have seen (years ago) were "gross." Perhaps they have toned down their use of inflammatory imagery. That would be nice.

I worked for a prosecuting attorney's office, and the problem with any stalking charge is always intent. The intent to "annoy, harass, or alarm" another person is so difficult to prosecute. These groups could contend that their intent was to inform others of what 'really' happens at Planned Parenthood, and unless there is a giant flier that says, "How to harass PP workers" then the justice system really can't do anything. Any prosecutor worth his salt would try to go after other charges, often something less extreme, but enough to stop the stalking.

It's awful that these people would picket this man's house... I also think it's telling that the man in this story is an immigrant- I wonder if perhaps the scare tactics are organized to go after the most marginalized members of society first.

Didn't the protest organizer in the interview show intent? He said that their view is that anybody who works for Planned Parenthood, even in the most tenuous of ways, is essentially guilty of a crime. His intent is to do whatever is necessary to stop them. Period.

I went over to a hospital the other day. There was a protest going. Of course, the people most affected by the issue of abortion were there.

All were white men.

Literally all - I was stuck in traffic in front of their little gathering for about 15 minutes so I had time to count. Most were in their early to late 20s, two or three in their fifties, and the prized seven year old boy. Because, see, "Train up your child in the ways of the Lord so he will not depart from it" also includes anti-abortion tactics. Also, then you've got the cute innocent kid who can diffuse questions to protesters with the "But, gee, if my mommy woulda aborted me, I wouldn't be here and gosh, mister, that's mean! I wouldn't wanna tell a poor little baby that!" sort of thing.

A male--

Well, yes. There's a lot of different reasons to be opposed to different things (abortion, the death penalty, eating meat, etc), but I don't consider, "But it's all gross and bloody" a particularly good or compelling reason. And that's all those pictures say.

Cedar, as you can see from my comments on the birth control thread, I state that "gross" is no reason to form a position, or a woman to make a choice one way or the other. And I can overcome "gross" with exposure or experience. I just don't get to see many pictures of by-products, and I have searched, but can never find actual photos of an intact dilation and extraction, the "partial birth abortion." I have read reports on it, I have read text of testimony before Congress, and would like to know more.

I am slowly reading comments so sorry if this has been posted.

As someone who participates in animal rights demonstrations, I value that we have free speech in this country. However, these tactics are extremely threatening and don't give the best image of a pro-family group. You can guaranfreakingtee that our group would never ever follow anyone or go to their homes. Also, the contractors have almost nothing to do with this. If these people really care about babies, maybe they should maybe adopt some and support public assistance. Don't even get me going on this. (I don't even say this as a hypocrite- my partner is adopted and we want to adopt one day).

I am glad they had both sides on there (on the segment). What the "don't rip the arms and legs off of babies" guy forgot to mention is that this facility will PREVENT ABORTIONS.

fucking shoot me already. People are DUMB. Contraception= fewer abortions. Abortion made illegal= women die= that is not pro life.

It's people like this that make me want to volunteer at Planned Parenthood.
(I actually am, come the new year. Gotta wait because I'm moving in a week.)

But that news report was horrifically one-sided. "Pictures of dead babies!!" I especially like how the PP rep got two whole sentences, while Will Duffy (the leader of the protestors..) got a whole, uninterrupted paragraph.

Hmph. The part I like is how apparently anyone remotely connected with Planned Parenthood is a criminal. I have been volunteering at Planned Parenthood for a little while now; my most recent volunteer experience was removing a lot of binders, books, and videos from the shelves in an office and the reading room because they're having the walls painted in something a bit friendlier than the current gunmetal gray. Guess I'd better adopt an alias and go underground. Oh, and most of the materials I boxed up did not have anything to do with abortion. Which brings me to my second point: it really, really makes me angry that these crazy anti-choice protesters always latch on to the whole abortion aspect of Planned Parenthood, when providing abortion counseling and information (and do they do abortions on site some places? they don't here) is only one part of the many, many things they do. The whole reason I started volunteering at PP was because of the many services they provide that are geared toward safe sex and contraception, which as we all know is highly effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies. Gee, seems to me that preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place would reduce the number of women who feel the need to seek abortions.

But I guess I've always had trouble understanding those who have an inability to think logically.

I feel compelled to say a couple of things about abortion in general because it's a very complicated issue for me, one that I am still trying to work out, and I'd like someone else's perspective on the conclusions that I have come to so far. At the moment, I would go so far to say that based on my religious upbringing and my religious beliefs alone, I would not be pro-choice. The idea of undergoing an abortion myself is nearly unthinkable for me; I just don't think I could ever do it (unless of course for a medically necessary reason.) However, despite that, I AM pro-choice, because I don't think my religious beliefs should be foisted upon someone else's body. I certainly would not want someone else to foist their beliefs upon mine. I try very hard not to place a moral value judgement on those who seek and obtain abortions because I don't have any idea or right to make that decision for them, and I will admit that occasionally that has been difficult for me, but I am working through it because I don't want to be that way. I especially do not think it is right for the government to mix religious beliefs into their decisions about abortion, its legality, and its availability. And I would never, ever stand out in front of, well, anywhere, with signs like those people are doing. Even when I was younger (like 13 or 14) and firmly anti-choice I wouldn't have done that. It just doesn't seem Christian, the way I understand Christian behavior is supposed to be.

Which brings me to my second point: it really, really makes me angry that these crazy anti-choice protesters always latch on to the whole abortion aspect of Planned Parenthood, when providing abortion counseling and information (and do they do abortions on site some places? they don't here) is only one part of the many, many things they do. The whole reason I started volunteering at PP was because of the many services they provide that are geared toward safe sex and contraception, which as we all know is highly effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies. Gee, seems to me that preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place would reduce the number of women who feel the need to seek abortions.

See, the thing is that these people don't want women and girls to have access to safe, reliable birth control methods. They just want to say, "Save it for marriage." And if you don't, well, you're damned anyway, so who the hell cares what happens to you and your bastard baby? And if you don't want to keep having babies, even if you're married? Too bad, that's your job: "Be fruitful and multiply."

I'm sorry, but these people just make me so mad that I shake. They claim to be Christian, but have obviously never read the New Testament. You know, that whole "love" thing? Jesus? Forgiveness? Nope, all Hellfire and Brimstone, and Mortal Sins. It's people like this that helped me well on my way to losing my faith. That and I just can't get behind ignoring facts to further my agenda.

Bluecat: The protester's intent, like you said, is to stop the construction of the Planned Parenthood. Even if he happens to be harassing, annoying, and scaring the worker in the news clip, the protester isn't out to just terrorize someone- they view it as a means to an end, and therefore the intent is to stop the clinic from being built, and that harassment/possibly stalking is just a side effect of that intent.

It's frustrating, because obviously the worker in this case IS being harassed and annoyed, but stalking is such a messy charge to prosecute, even in seemingly the most clear-cut cases. And many times if the stalker isn't convicted because of the fuzzy 'intent' issues, then it leads to more trouble for the victim.

I'm not at all suggesting that because it might possibly be difficult to prosecute that stalkers that they shouldn't be prosecuted, it just needs to be done in conjunction with other charges that have a more concrete legal definition in order to be sure to be effective.

My legal expertise is limited, as this was a job I held as an internship throughout high school, but the stalking thing I know because it always struck me as such a nutty legal loophole.

Does anyone know if it would be possible to take out a restraining order against the protesters so that they would at the very least have to stay out of the worker's neighborhood?

I know that this will sound immature, but the other day my boyfriend saw a guy protesting abortion outside the hospital where his mom was recovering from survery. Long story short, he rolled down his window, flipped the guy off, and then shouted something at him to the affect of, "I'm pro-choice, fucker!" then drove off. Again, I know that it's immature, but I applauded for a long time after hearing that story.

So I'm not sure if I am welcome here.

I am male, usually pro-life (anti-choice, if you would like to take the offensive), I believe in abstinence education, and I am a Christian.

I will say that it is pretty terrible what people will do in the name of God. I have been reading for a couple of weeks now I will say that I have been enlightened by many issues that have been raised. When I say that I am usually pro-life I might not fit the standard "right" definition. So I believe abortions should be avoided. I believe late term and partial birth abortions are absolutely wrong. I dunno in my eyes the fetus is clearly a person by then.

I don't condone the actions of these hardliners. Even if it(abortion) is absolutely positively a sin I believe it is still between a person and God. I think I am a pretty moderate guy when it comes to these issues and I would say that most of my Christian friends are as well. I honestly don't know anyone who would participate it such a spiteful method of disagreement, Christian or not.
I guess what I am saying is there are many people out there who wear disguises. (I sound like I am preaching). They are not genuine. I mean the KKK claim to be a christian group. Do you believe that? I hope not. There are so called "feminist" out there who advocate porn as well. I don't take them as true feminist.

Anyways... I hope and pray that abortion can be eliminated one day.. but means a lot of things must change. A fair and living income for everyone, proper social support, a better foster care system, care and support for victims not just punishment for the guilty, more support for single mothers.. and the list goes on and on.....

So I do wanna pose a question.. what do you feel about late term and partial birth abortion?