The Aftermath

Depression is a major issue with pregnancies in general. Two of the most common being postpartum depression and major depression usually caused by one is having to carry a baby to term with no desire to (in this situation). With depression may also come an extreme form of sadness that may result in suicidal thoughts and maybe escalate into suicidal behaviors. Sadly some women think this is their only way out of the pregnancy if they have already been denied the option to not have the child.

According to a research source, statistics show that in developed countries up to 16% of pregnant women meet the criteria for major depression. The number dramatically increases to 51% when minorities and unmarried teenagers are brought into the mix. Unmarried teenagers are the biggest risk factor for depression and suicidal impulses during pregnancy. Although major depression occurs during the actual pregnancy, postpartum depression can last long after a baby is born and can be unbearable to live with. 20% of postpartum deaths can be accounted for by suicide. Along with these statistics and mental illnesses, pregnancy also has a tendency to turn on hormones to a level that may be difficult to handle. Women who fall into any of these risk factors should be checked up on.

Women should not feel like they are trapped in a pregnancy. All that can be done to help living people now should be done before any attention is focused on something that could potentially become something or could potentially become nothing. Depression really does happen to a lot of people and a lot of the time friends and family do not even pick up on it. News of pregnancy could be just as devastating as it is for some people to find out they can never have children. Women need to have options, just because women are genetically able to have children, does not mean that they particularly want any.

Gentile, Salvatore. "Abstract:." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National  Library of Medicine, 5 Dec. 1930. Web. 8 Apr. 2014. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3134924/>.

This source was some sort of a research project that focused on suicide ideation during pregnancy. It was found that it is actually a pretty common occurrence in both developed and developing countries.

This source is as reliable as it can be seeing as it is an experiment/research project. It is also a .gov website so its legitimate. This source played a big role in my topic because it offered statistics. I also did not have to focus early on in the pregnancies like my other posts were focused on. The source had a lot of information it was overwhelming at times with the foreign countries that do not really relate to what I was trying to discuss.

Restrictions

Many people do not really know how the process of abortions works. One major aspect that people so commonly overlook is that there are restrictions put on abortions. There are times that doctors tell patients that it is too late to have that as an option. When fetuses become independently viable is when things need to get controversial. The fact that there are so many restrictions on when a woman can and cannot have an abortion should be comforting to a lot of people who were not aware. Currently the maximum number of weeks you can be pregnant is 24.

Abortions are currently legal before a woman is 24 weeks pregnant. If a pregnant woman were to go into labor and give birth anytime before 24 weeks, the fetus would not survive even in intensive care. Although there have been few exceptions, there have not been enough to outweigh the percentage that are not able to survive independently of the mother. This being establish, one of the stereotypical arguments saying that the fetus is a living child and that all abortions are “murder” is not only a malicious attack on the woman, but also flawed seeing as the overwhelming amount of fetuses are not even independently viable at this point. The restrictions do not stop at the 24 week rule, there have been restrictions and limitations placed in certain circumstances on when and if a woman can have an abortion, they include, but are not limited to: mandatory counseling sessions, waiting 24 hours (or any wait period), informing parents if underage, and informing the father.

Although these restrictions discussed are present, as mentioned above they are not limited. Each state has its own limitations, most of them varying with wait period, or whether or not they have to inform the father. Currently, abortions are legal, to some extent, in every state. The 24 week rule is the absolute longest a woman can be pregnant and still there have to be serious complications that usually have to be life threatening to the mother to even be considered. If a fetus cannot live on its own without being incubated by the woman, why would it be considered a living being?

"National Abortion Federation: History of Abortion." National Abortion Federation: History of Abortion. National Abortion Federation, n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2014. <https://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html>

This source tells about the history of the legality and issues regarding abortion. It offers a timeline as well as court cases.

This source is helpful because it offers many examples to use. It also puts everything into a perspective time frame. The source does seem like it may be a little bias when looking around at the links on the website, but the information was extremely helpful. It can be assumed that it is correct because it is a .org

Effects that Last a Lifetime

Even if women are stripped of their rights to their own bodies and abortions are banned for good, they will never stop. If a woman does not want to carry a child for nine months and give birth to it, she will not. She will do whatever it takes to get rid of it, which could pose a threat on the woman's physical health and even to her life. If they cannot get the abortion they desire or fail to achieve it after attempting, it could also do major psychological damage.

Forcing a woman to carry a fetus and give birth to a baby at full term could be psychologically damaging in countless ways. For example, what if the woman was raped? She would not only be forced to carry a reminder of her rapist for up to nine months, but also be expected to give birth to a son or daughter who would inherit the combined DNA, a permanent reminder of a traumatic event. A woman who is forced to carry to term could very easily develop depression due to hormones along with having an unwanted foreign object in her body. She may or may not even feel resentment toward this child. It could lead the woman to make rash decisions like trying to abort the pregnancy in an unsafe way that could end up fatal to herself.

Some people may argue that if abortion is legal some women will abuse it. While this could be true, abortion does not really seem like something that could be horribly abusable. This is due to cost, discomfort, and the doctors would probably ask a woman to seek help if this began to pose a problem. Statistically, people do not get pregnant as much as it may seem. Every month a woman has about a 25 percent chance of conception. Couples try for years before actually becoming pregnant. But unfortunately everything has potential to be abused. American society just has to hope that more people are responsible than those who are not. That is why the United States is known for its freedom, individuals govern their own lives and decide what is best for themselves and there is not much any one person can do about it. If America banned everything that was abusable or ever caused a problem or controversy, what would society be?  

All in all, in America government and powerful groups of people with radical opinions should not be able to decide what a woman does with her body, only the woman should be in charge of what she does with it. If abortions are completely banned it would cause more harm than good. Legal restrictions contrary to some popular belief does not lower abortion rates, it just greatly increases the risk for women to be harmed in attempts. “Back-Alley Abortions” could easily become prevalent like they were when abortion was illegal, especially among unwanted teen pregnancies. It could also lead to more depression or even a rise in suicide rates in women as well as in children due to the possibility of them feeling unwanted or resented by their mother.

It can be concluded that if a woman becomes pregnant accidentally and does not want to be a mother or be pregnant at all, she will be tremendously negatively affected. Especially if she is denied the option to even decide if she wants to have a baby or not. Regardless to how someone becomes pregnant, whether it is rape, recklessness, carelessness, or accident, if abortions are banned, they are banned for everyone. People who mentally cannot handle carrying a delivering a baby they could not keep could be changed for the rest of their life, or they may not even make it to delivery if they try to get rid of it another way that may be life threatening.

"Are you IN THE KNOW?." Are you IN THE KNOW: Legal restrictions on abortion. Guttmacher Institute, n.d. Web. 7 Apr. 2014.

<https://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/abortion-restrictions.html>.

This website offers facts about abortions in a question and answer type format. There is more than just rates and statistics, there is information on court cases like Roe v. Wade as well as information on the Hyde Amendment.

It is easy to read which is why it is a good source to use because it would be almost impossible to misinterpret. The cut and dry aspects and factual nature make it an extremely reliable source. The biggest part of this website is that it is .org so there is evidence that someone did not just make a random website. If this had more question and answers it would have been a lot more helpful.

Patient X

The topic of abortion has swept through the United States throughout the latter half of the twentieth century up until present day twenty first century leaving nothing in its path but unwavering opinions and debate. It has easily become one of the most controversial topics to date involving biology. The two slogans “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice” quickly evolved from personal opinions into single issue groups with radical opinions, of which neither will back down. Although everyone is entitled to their own opinion, when it comes down to it, nobody can really make the decision except for the person who is experiencing the unexpected, unplanned, or unwanted pregnancy. Furthermore, if a woman does not want to tell anybody that she has plans to abort the pregnancy before it becomes anything, most of the time she does not have to. This is because of an agreement that all Doctors are bound to: The Doctor Patient Confidentiality Agreement.  

This confidentiality agreement ensures trust between both the doctor and the patient. It also allows the patient to do what they wish with their bodies under the respect of the doctors opinion and recommendations. According to the source, under this agreement the doctor is obligated to the patients personal needs and beliefs. Would wanting an abortion not be considered one of these? People have almost unlimited opportunities to change their bodies drastically through numerous medical procedures. These procedures range from the removal of an unsightly mole to cosmetic facial and bodily reconstruction to surgically removing part of the stomach in order to lose weight. All of these procedures are drastic and potentially life changing (and even threatening), but nonetheless, kept between the doctor and the patient unless the patient wishes to tell anyone. If all of this is accepted in society, then why should a woman be denied the right to remove an unwanted mass of cells from her body before it becomes anything?

Moreover, there are even exceptions to this confidentiality agreement and abortions rarely fall on this list. One of the only times anything to do with an abortion would fall into the category of needing to tell someone would be if a minor wants to get an abortion. In this case they would have to have parental consent because they are not adults and technically can not consent to any medical procedure without a parent or guardian. One other reason would be if the state requires the woman to tell the “father” before going through with the abortion. More common exceptions to this confidentiality rule would be instances of child abuse or thoughts of hurting oneself or others.

Obviously abortions are a medical procedure and should not be publicized solely for that reason, but they can also be emotionally and psychologically damaging. What would be worse than coming home, most likely a little shaken up and in pain and realizing that everyone knows what you just went through? Imagine some of your closest friends judging you? Or just the fact that everyone knows your personal business? That alone would be devastating. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should know anyone’s medical history other than their own (unless of course the person decides to tell them). There should be no judgement or ostracization of people who choose to abort their pregnancies because it is nobodies business except the woman’s and potentially her partner.

This being said, abortions are currently a legal medical procedure and there is no reason for one to be discussed with anyone other than the woman and her doctor. If the woman decides to tell someone that she trusts for support, that is her decision. The Doctor Patient Confidentiality agreement is one of the fundamental aspects of medicine. It would be a shame to see it misused and have women fall victim to what society as a whole demands but does not understand.

"Legal•Info." Breaches Of Doctor Patient Confidentiality. LegalInfo.com, n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2014.    

<http://www.legalinfo.com/content/medical-malpractice/breaches-of-doctor-patient-confidentiality.html>.

This website offers cut and dry insight on the Doctor Patient Confidentiality agreement. It tells the reader times when there are exceptions and the basis of  the agreement between the doctor and the patient.

This source is helpful because it is a scholarly article that is purely factual without slurs of opinions being thrown out. It offers to the topic because it discusses how the medical field is a very private one therefore all procedures should be kept private. It would have been more helpful if it was longer but it was still nice that it was concise with its brevity.

The Fine Line

“Congress shall make no law …  abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment is arguably the most important section of The Bill of Rights. With importance comes recognition; however, recognition is not always a positive facet. Many Americans have begun to misinterpret what the writer(s) of the Bill of Rights may have intended. This issue is brought to light in a New York Times article in which a divide between anti-abortion activists and pro-choice supporters is discussed. The source of this specific divide revolves around a law that requires a 35 foot buffer zone outside each abortion clinic within the state of Massachusetts. Content found within the article offers prime examples of how this specific single issue group is taking the words of The First Amendment and manipulating them in their own favor. In this case, it is taken so far out of context that the activists have almost created an entirely new meaning of the amendment. Somehow an amendment intended to ensure the rights of speech and assembly to all United States citizens is being used as a free ticket to harass and riot in the event that differences in opinion occur; in this case it is the issue of abortion.

It is safe to say that the majority of educated Americans know what the The First Amendment states. On the other hand, it may not be as safe to say that the majority of educated Americans truly understand what the amendment is actually saying. While US citizens are guaranteed their rights, it needs to be understood that one US citizen's rights stop where another US citizen’s right start. To put this into perspective, the rights of the soliciting protesters are only inhibited in order to ensure both the rights and the safety of those who wish to exercise their legal right to choose (to have or not to have an abortion). The only action truly being denied to the solicitors is the 35 feet of pavement, grass, dirt, or gravel surrounding the abortion clinic. Saying that this law is unconstitutional and denies the solicitors their First Amendment Rights is an exaggeration to the point of untruthfulness. No one is being denied their right of speech, they are simply being told that they can not stand within a 35 foot vicinity of the building. How is this so much more of an upset than simple trespassing laws? Buffer zones exist in places all across the nation in places like funerals, slaughterhouses, circuses, political events, and pretty much any place where assemblies of people with common grievances could turn into violent and dangerous riots.

These laws were not just thrown into place without thought. If they were not deemed necessary why would the government and court waste their time? A quote from the article stating that “there was a considerable history of disturbances and blocking the entrance” implies that something needed to be done. Not only is abortion a serious and emotional decision, but it is also a completely personal decision. The fact that women were being harassed and demeaned every time they build up the unimaginable amount of strength to walk into the doors of the clinic, past the sea of disapproving looks, does not reflect the image that this pro-life group is probably trying to give off to the world. It actually makes them look like a ruthless group of people attacking emotionally vulnerable women. Arguments centered around another part of The First Amendment, the right to assemble, have also been brought up. The major problem with this argument is that in the amendment the word “peaceful” is used; there is nothing peaceful about disturbances, entrance blockages, harassment, and, in 1994, an extreme situation involving a shooting.

All this article has really done is prove that the group of people attempting to overturn the 35 foot buffer zone law have no case. The First Amendment does not support the cause of the pro-life interest group in any of the ways that were previously discussed. It brings to light that limiting places where one’s feet can stand does not limit when one can open his or her mouth and talk as loudly as he or she wants about whatever he or she wants to. Therefore there is no violation of restricting freedom of speech. It is also no secret that “mob mentality” can arise from the smallest spark in a crowd of passionate people. This law was not put into place to hurt those who do not agree with abortion, but to protect the women who feel that it is their only option and the supporters who respect these rights.

Liptak, Adam. "Justices Seem Split on Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones, but Crucial Voice Is Silent."

The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Jan. 2014. Web. 7 Apr. 2014.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/us/justices-seem-split-on-buffer-zones-at-abortion-clinics.html?_r=0>.

This source discusses the controversy surrounding a new law in Massachusetts which calls for a 35 foot buffer zone at every abortion clinic in the state. It contains opinionated and factual quotations from both sides of the controversy as well as background information regarding previous violence and facts a reader would want to know within the article.

This source plays a big role in introducing the topic of the issue of abortion because it shows the issues that are prevalent early on that do not have to directly do with the actual procedure or the fetus. The source should be considered pretty credible seeing as it was published in The New York Times and probably went through heavy editing and review. Direct quotations from both sides offered an view of each side, from each side, so a writers bias was avoided with many quotations. The only aspect that could pose a problem is that the newspaper that this was published in is notorious for its liberal slants.

Drafts

The Aftermath

Depression is a huge issue with pregnancies. One of the most common being postpartum depression and major depression if one are having to carry a baby to term with no desire to . With depression may also come an extreme form of sadness that may result in suicidal thoughts and maybe escalate into suicidal behaviors. Sadly some women think this is their only way out of the pregnancy if they have already been denied the option to not have the child.

Statistics show that in developed countries up to 16% of pregnant women meet the criteria for major depression. The number dramatically increases to 51% when minorities and unmarried teenagers are brought in. Unmarried teenagers are the biggest risk factor for depression and suicidal impulses during pregnancy. Although major depression occurs during the actual pregnancy, postpartum depression can last long after a baby is born and can be unbearable to live with. Pregnancy also has a tendency to turn on hormones to a level that may be difficult to handle. Women who fall into any of these risk factors should be checked up on.

Women should not feel like they are trapped in a pregnancy. All that can be done to help living people now should be done before any attention is focused on something that could potentially become something or could potentially become nothing. Depression really does happen to a lot of people and a lot of the time friends and family do not even pick up on it. News of pregnancy could be just as devastating as it is for some people to find out they can never have children. Women need to have options, just because women are genetically able to have children, does not mean that they particularly want any.

Gentile, Salvatore. "Abstract:." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National  Library of Medicine, 5 Dec. 1930. Web. 8 Apr. 2014. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3134924/>.

This source was some sort of a research project that focused on suicide ideation during pregnancy. It was found that it is actually a pretty common occurrence in both developed and developing countries.

This source is as reliable as it can be seeing as it is an experiment/research project. It is also a .gov website so its legitimate. This source played a big role in my topic because it offered statistics. I also did not have to focus early on in the pregnancies like my other posts were focused on. The source had a lot of information it was overwhelming at times with the foreign countries that do not really relate to what I was trying to discuss.

Effects that Last a Lifetime

Even if women are stripped of their rights to their own bodies and abortions are banned, they will not stop. If a woman does not want to carry a child for nine months and give birth to it, they will not. They will do whatever it takes to get rid of it, which could pose a threat on the woman's health. If they cannot get the abortion they desire or fail to achieve it after attempting, it could also do major psychological damage. (Could having an abortion also lead to psychological damage?)

Forcing a woman to carry a fetus and give birth to a baby at full term could be psychologically damaging in many ways. For example, what if the woman was raped? She would be carrying a reminder (and even DNA of her rapist) for up to nine months and that would probably be something pretty hard to ignore. (Impossible to ignore if she is birthing the baby) A woman who is forced to carry to term could very easily develop depression due to hormones along with having an unwanted foreign object in her body that she may or may not feel resentment toward. It could lead the woman to make rash decisions like trying to abort the pregnancy,  an unsafe way that could end up fatal to herself. (What are the rates of fatal pregnancies?) Some people may argue that if abortion is legal people will abuse it. This statement is probably true, but everything has potential to be abused. If we banned everything that could potentially be abused, we would not have much freedom. (Explain this last sentence. Maybe include another analogy?)

All in all, government (which government?) and groups of people with radical opinions should not be able to decide what a woman does with her body, only the woman should be in charge of what she does with it.(So other members of the family possible taking care of the child have no say?)  If abortions are completely banned it would cause more harm than good in my opinion. (You do not have to include “in my opinion”) “Back-Alley Abortions” could easily become prevalent like they were when abortion was illegal, especially among unwanted teen pregnancies. It could also lead to more depression or even a rise in suicide rates in women as well as in children due to the possibility of them feeling unwanted or resented by their mother. (Do you think adoption is an option--just a thought, although it is off topic from the blog)

"Are you IN THE KNOW?." Are you IN THE KNOW: Legal restrictions on abortion. Guttmacher Institute, n.d. Web. 7 Apr. 2014.

<https://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/abortion-restrictions.html>.

Maggie: BLOG: I like how you include the emotional aspect of abortion. You allow your reader to feel more emotion about the matter by incorporating rape and the possibility of the child feeling rejected.

Maggie: BIBLIOGRAPHY: Incorporate the court cases into your blog, but this source seems very reliable!

Restrictions

Building on the issues of banning abortions, the next major one would be that there are already restrictions put on when a woman can have an abortion. This seems like a decent compromise for both extremes of the life-choice scale. The first trimester it is up to the woman completely, then things get a little more controversial as the pregnancy progresses.

Abortions are currently legal before a woman is 24 weeks pregnant. If a pregnant woman were to go into labor and give birth anytime before 24 weeks, the fetus would not survive even in intensive care (there have been few exceptions, but not enough to outweigh the percentage that are not able to survive independently of the mother). Therefore, the argument saying that the fetus is a living child and abortions are “murder” is not only a malicious attack on the woman, but also flawed seeing as the overwhelming amount of fetuses are not even independently viable at this point. (Why is “murder” in quotations? Who says this? Why do you think some women feel this way towards the matter? Do men feel different?) Moreover, there are already restrictions and limitations in certain circumstances on when and if a woman can have an abortion including: mandatory counseling sessions, waiting 24 hours, informing parents (if underage), and informing the father. (What if the father feels otherwise? Does the father have a say in the abortion or is it strictly the mother’s decision?)

Although these restrictions discussed are present, they are not limited. Each state has its own limitations,(Give some examples from certain states)  but currently, abortions are legal in every state (to an extent). If a fetus can not live on its own without being incubated by the woman, why would it be considered a living being? (I like how you end in a question to leave the reader in a thinking stage)

"National Abortion Federation: History of Abortion." National Abortion Federation: History of Abortion. National Abortion Federation, n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2014. <https://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html>

This source tells about the history of the legality and issues regarding abortion. It offers a timeline as well as court cases.

This source is helpful because it offers many examples to use. It also puts everything into a perspective time frame. The source does seem like it may be a little bias when looking around at the links on the website, but the information was extremely helpful. It can be assumed that it is correct because it is a .org

Patient X - Draft

The topic of abortion has easily been one of the most controversial topics of both the 20th and 21st century.(Where is this? United States only?) The two slogans “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice” have evolved from just personal opinions into two single issue groups with intense opinions who refuse to back down. (Maybe define the differences?) People who wish to ban abortion completely are unrealistic in their hope. There are countless loopholes and flaws in the arguments of the people who wish to make abortions illegal. One of the major ones being that doctors are legally obligated to confidentiality with their patients.

This confidentiality ensures trust between both the doctor and the patient. It also allows the patient to do what they wish with their bodies under the respect of the doctors opinion and recommendations. In the source (cited below) it states that under this agreement the doctor is obligated to the patients personal needs and beliefs. Would wanting an abortion not be considered one of these?(I like this question, it makes the reader judge their opinion) People have almost unlimited opportunities to change their bodies drastically through numerous medical procedures (ranging from the removal of an unsightly mole to, cosmetic reconstruction, to surgically removing part of the stomach in order to lose weight). All of these procedures are kept between the doctors and the patient unless the patient wishes to tell anyone. This being said, why should a woman be denied the right to remove an unwanted mass of cells from her body before it becomes anything? (Your opinion is very evident here) Denying this of a woman is not only taking away her right to privacy, it is also a breach in doctor patient confidentiality.

This being said, abortions are a medical procedure and there is no reason for them to be publicized to anyone other than the woman and the doctor (and whoever else the woman decides to tell). The Doctor Patient Confidentiality agreement is one of the fundamental aspects of medicine. It would be a shame to see it misused and women fall victim just because a group of activists has a different opinion, after all, everyone is entitled to their own.

"Legal•Info." Breaches Of Doctor Patient Confidentiality. LegalInfo.com, n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2014.    <http://www.legalinfo.com/content/medical-malpractice/breaches-of-doctor-patient-confidentiality.html>.

This website offers some insight on the Doctor Patient Confidentiality agreement. It tell the reader times when there are exceptions and the basis of  the agreement. This source is helpful because it is a scholarly article that is purely factual without slurs of opinions being thrown out.

Maggie: BLOG: Your opinion on the topic is very clear. Included in your blog is an example of confidentiality which indicates that the woman and the doctor can keep the information classified. If a woman is entitled to their own beliefs and their own health, why can’t they make the decision of abortion for themselves?

Maggie: BIBLIOGRAPHY: The bibliography lists the source and explains the main concept of the source.

The Fine Line - Draft

“Congress shall make no law …  abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment is arguably the most important section in the revolutionary American document The Bill of Rights. With importance comes recognition; however, recognition is not always a positive facet. Many Americans have begun to misinterpret what the writer(s) of the Bill of Rights may have intended. This is demonstrated in a New York Times article which discusses the divide between anti-abortion activists and pro-choice supporters in regards to court mandated buffer zones outside of all abortion clinics within the state of Massachusetts. This is a prime example of how in certain situations single issue groups have started to take the words of The First Amendment out of context and manipulate them in their own favor, even if it means taking away the rights of others.

It is safe to say that the majority of educated Americans know what the The First Amendment states. On the other hand, it may not be as safe to say that the majority of educated Americans truly understand what the amendment is actually saying. While United States citizens are guaranteed their rights, it needs to be understood that one US citizen's rights stop where another US citizen’s start. To put this into perspective, the rights of the soliciting protesters are only inhibited in order to ensure both the rights and the safety of those who wish to exercise their legal right to choose. The only action truly being denied to the solicitors is the 35 feet of pavement surrounding the abortion clinic. Saying that this law is unconstitutional and denies them their First Amendment Rights is an exaggeration to the point of untruthfulness. No one is being denied their right of speech, they are simply being told that they can not stand within a 35 foot vicinity of the building. How is this so much more of an upset than simple trespassing laws? Buffer zones exist in places all across the nation like funerals, slaughterhouses, circuses, political events, and pretty much any place where assemblies of people with common grievances can turn into violent and dangerous riots.

These laws were not just thrown into place without thought. The quote in the article, “ there was  considerable history of disturbances and blocking the entrance” implies that something needed to be done. Not only is abortion a serious and emotional decision, but it is also a completely personal decision. The fact that women were being harassed and demeaned every time they built up the unimaginable amount of strength to walk into the doors of the clinic does not reflect the image that this pro-life group is probably trying to give off. It actually makes them look like a ruthless group of people attacking emotionally vulnerable women. Arguments centered around another part of  The First Amendment, the right to assemble, have also been brought up. The major problem with this argument is that in the amendment the word “peaceful” is used; there is nothing peaceful about disturbances, entrance blockages, harassment, and in 1994 an extreme situation involving a shooting.

All this article has really done is prove that the group of people attempting to overturn the 35 foot buffer zone law have no case. The First Amendment does not support the cause of the interest group in the ways that they are trying to depict. In fact, the fact that they brought rights into the harms their argument more than it helps it. It brings to light that limiting places where one’s feet can stand does not limit when one can open his or her mouth and talk as loudly as he or she wants about whatever he or she wants to. It is also no secret that “mob mentality” can arise from the smallest spark in a crowd of passionate people. This law was not put into place to hurt those who do not agree with abortion, but to protect the women who feel that it is their only option and the supporters who respect these rights.