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.