Clinic Escorts Protect Women From Protesters Singing ‘Happy Birthday Dead Baby'

[Ramblin' Dave]

Originally Posted by Bill

Massachusetts law provides for a 35-foor "buffer zone" outside the buildings.

It was recently upheld by an appeals court against First Amendment concerns.

One of the more activist, capital-L Libertarians I know often complains about how FACE laws violate his First Amendment rights to let people know what an abomination abortion is. As far as I can tell, he's completely unaware of the irony of him feeling like the one whose rights are being abused vis a vis what he's putting the clinic patients through. Typical with Libertarians, though - it's amazing how many of them make an exception to their love of personal liberty when it comes to a woman's right to choose.

Originally Posted by LadyLockeout

I had to sit my MIL down one day years ago, and actually take her through everything PPH offered in the way of health care for both men and women, to finally break her out of the "abortion factory" mentality.

But you were able to get her to work past it? Way ahead of me on that score: most of the anti-choicers I know cling fiercely to the whole "they never even mention adoption!" thing no matter how meticulously I explain that, yes, they do, and they don't push abortion on anyone who doesn't already want one.

[LadyLockeout]

I don't know if I managed to move her past it, or if she just finally learned enough to keep her lips zipped around me. Either way, she's quiet now. I'll take what I can get

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Bill

And, just to complicate things even more, you've got the possibility that the song in the OP may be protected under the copyright law as a parody, depending on certain factors:

I wouldn't think the parody exception would apply if they're just inserting "dead baby" in the usual place, instead of a person's name, without making any other changes.

[Blatherskite]

Originally Posted by Ramblin' Dave

One of the more activist, capital-L Libertarians I know often complains about how FACE laws violate his First Amendment rights to let people know what an abomination abortion is. As far as I can tell, he's completely unaware of the irony of him feeling like the one whose rights are being abused vis a vis what he's putting the clinic patients through.

I suppose he could argue that a woman still has the right to get an abortion even if he has to right to harass her for it. As long as he doesn't believe abortion should be illegal he's not a hypocrite. An arsehole, but not a hypocrite.

[Rebochan]

Do you have any idea how many Libertarians I've met that are die-hard anti-abortion fanatics? Pointing out that it's completely at odds with their supposed "hands off!" philosophy doesn't help.

Frankly, it's a big reason why I've learned to stop taking Libertarianism seriously as a philosophy.

[TurquoiseGirl]

Rebochan beat me to it, but that is the biggest reason I think that Libertarianism is just a slightly grumpier form of conservatism.

[Esprise Me]

Originally Posted by Ramblin' Dave

Way ahead of me on that score: most of the anti-choicers I know cling fiercely to the whole "they never even mention adoption!" thing no matter how meticulously I explain that, yes, they do, and they don't push abortion on anyone who doesn't already want one.

Because if the abortionists don't tell us about adoption, it might never occur to us.

I think what the anti-choicers want is for PP to bully its patients into "choosing life" the way they would if they had the chance. When I had my abortion, I was at the clinic for more than four hours even though it was a medication abortion; the actual administration of pills took 30 seconds, and the rest was just paperwork and counseling. Lots of counseling. They wanted to be very sure I was there of my own accord and not being pressured by anyone. They wanted to make sure I knew what to expect and what my options were. But they weren't condescending jerks about it; all I had to say was, "I've thought about adoption, but I decided I didn't want to go through the pregnancy and childbirth," and they let the subject drop. It was almost as though they believed I was capable of thinking for myself.

Originally Posted by Lainie

I wouldn't think the parody exception would apply if they're just inserting "dead baby" in the usual place, instead of a person's name, without making any other changes.

I only studied this briefly in Property, but I believe you're right. Like a lot of words, "parody" has a narrower meaning as a legal term than the way it's used generally. In order to qualify as a parody under fair use laws, the new version must be making some kind of comment on the original, which therefore necessitates the use of the original. If the new version is merely using the original as a vehicle for unrelated social commentary, it's only "satire" and not fair use. The case we read that best explained that was Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin, which you can read here. The short version: A satirical version of Dr. Seuss's The Cat in the Hat, based on the OJ trial, was published by the defendant Penguin Books. The estate of Theodore Geisel sued for copyright infringement, and one of Penguin's defenses was that the book qualified as a parody under the fair use laws. The court disagreed:

We first examine the definition of parody. The parties disagree over the appropriate interpretation of Acuff-Rose's holding with respect to the definition of parody under the fair use exception. The Supreme Court of the United States in the Acuff-Rose case held that a rap group's version of Ray Orbison's song "Oh, Pretty Woman" was a candidate for a parody fair use defense. Justice Souter, the opinion's author, defined parody:

For the purposes of copyright law, the nub of the definitions, and the heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material, is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that authors works.... If, on the contrary, the commentary has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, which the alleged infringe merely uses to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh, the claim to fairness in borrowing from another's work diminishes accordingly (if it does not vanish), and other factors, like the extent of its commerciality, loom larger.

The Court pointed out the difference between parody (in which the copyrighted work is the target) and satire (in which the copyrighted work is merely a vehicle to poke fun at another target): "Parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim's (or collective victims) imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing." As Justice Kennedy put it in his concurrence: "The parody must target the original, and not just its general style, the genre of art to which it belongs, or society as a whole (although if it targets the original, it may target those features as well)."

These stanzas and the illustrations simply retell the Simpson tale. Although The Cat NOT in the Hat! does broadly mimic Dr. Seuss' characteristic style, it does not hold his style up to ridicule. The stanzas have "no critical bearing on the substance or style of' The Cat in the Hat. Katz and Wrinn merely use the Cat's stove-pipe hat, the narrator ("Dr. Juice), and the title (The Cat NOT in the Hat!) "to get attention" or maybe even "to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh." While Simpson is depicted 13 times in the Cat's distinctively scrunched and somewhat shabby red and white stove-pipe hat, the substance and content of The Cat in the Hat is not conjured up by the focus on the Brown-Goldman murders or the O.J. Simpson trial. Because there is no effort to create a transformative work with "new expression, meaning, or message," the infringing works commercial use further cuts against the fair use defense.

[Mickey Blue]

Originally Posted by Rebochan

Do you have any idea how many Libertarians I've met that are die-hard anti-abortion fanatics? Pointing out that it's completely at odds with their supposed "hands off!" philosophy doesn't help.

Frankly, it's a big reason why I've learned to stop taking Libertarianism seriously as a philosophy.

Many will argue that by 'small government' they actually mean 'state's make the rules not the feds' so it's ok if a state makes abortion illegal, it still jives with their libertarian ideals.. Until of course a state makes something they like (like gun rights) illegal, then the gloves are off.

While there are plenty of exceptions, the (anecdotal) pattern I've noticed is that libertarians in general often are against government control of things they don't want or need and in favor of it in the event of things they do.

To use examples; many are against healthcare, welfare, etc.. Things that they likely don't want/need right now. However when it comes to things like roads, the military, police/fire/rescue, etc they are in favor because they need those things and, presumably, don't feel the free market will do the job as well.

Of course, some of that can be explained away with "There are some things that just have to be controlled by the government realistically" which is fine (though again, the pattern of "These things happen to be stuff I benefit from as opposed to stuff I don't" raises some flags) but as you say when they start getting into stuff like gay rights, abortion, etc it makes it a lot harder to take them seriously.

I think a part of the problem is after Bush the GOP lost a lot of people who didn't really like the current party, or felt they weren't very electable, but really didn't want to give up any of their current views. After looking around they decided "Hey! Libertarianism is basically the same thing!". The problem is they latched onto all the "Fiscal conservatism" part and forgot about the whole "Socially liberal" part.

Really it can all be summed up, again only in my anecdotal experience, thusly; Libertarians may well be about social liberalism and fiscal conservatism, but if it comes down to it and one has to bend, it's nearly always the social liberalism part that bends.

[Jahungo]

I would say it's not necessarily hypocritical to be libertarian (the political philosophy, not the party) and pro-life*. Many libertarians believe in limited government, not a complete absence of government, and roles for that limited government will generally include protecting the most important rights of its individuals. Sometimes those rights will conflict, but that doesn't necessarily mean the government should stay out of it.

A libertarian who believed that the embryo/fetus has a right to life that outweighs the right of a pregnant women to control her body could be pro-life without being hypocritical.

I think it's much harder for a libertarian to be against gay marriage without being hypocritical (although they could be against the government having any role in marriage whatsoever), since two gay people marrying doesn't potentially violate anyone else's rights.

*edited because I mistyped

[Lainie]

Jahungo, I don't think you meant to say "pro-choice" in the first sentence of your post.

[Jahungo]

Yeah, you're right. Fixed that.

[TurquoiseGirl]

I disagree. I find it absolutely hypocritical to claim the right to protect your property with lethal force, but not your right to do so to protect your body or your dreams or ability to provide for your family against a potential human being.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Especially since nearly all Libertarians I've ever hears have been vocally opposed to any form of state run child welfare programs. It comes across as "we're going to force you to have the kids you don't want and can't afford and then stick you with the bills."

[Ramblin' Dave]

Originally Posted by Rebochan

Do you have any idea how many Libertarians I've met that are die-hard anti-abortion fanatics?

I think maybe I do, because I've met an awful lot of them as well!

Originally Posted by Esprise Me

Because if the abortionists don't tell us about adoption, it might never occur to us.

Crazy as it sounds, that is exactly what some of the people I've tangled with do believe. The closest I've ever gotten to an explanation of the whole thing is "Adoption isn't talked about very much!" That guy never, ever backed up his claims with anything but attitude, and this time was no exception. Perhaps it wasn't intended to be a factual statement. My response was that it was rather arrogant of him to assume women never considered adoption on their own, to which he responded that my serving as a clinic escort was arrogant.

Originally Posted by Esprise Me

I think what the anti-choicers want is for PP to bully its patients into "choosing life" the way they would if they had the chance. When I had my abortion, I was at the clinic for more than four hours even though it was a medication abortion; the actual administration of pills took 30 seconds, and the rest was just paperwork and counseling. Lots of counseling. They wanted to be very sure I was there of my own accord and not being pressured by anyone. They wanted to make sure I knew what to expect and what my options were. But they weren't condescending jerks about it; all I had to say was, "I've thought about adoption, but I decided I didn't want to go through the pregnancy and childbirth," and they let the subject drop. It was almost as though they believed I was capable of thinking for myself.

This is also something I had to explain to the same guy: PP does provide counseling, and they never push anyone into an abortion she doesn't want. It went in one ear and out the other. I think the issue we run into with anti-choicers is that they're so irrevocably convinced that abortion is horrible, it simply doesn't compute with them that a woman could ever make an informed decision to have one.

OTOH, in another argument about the issue, that same guy once announced, "I don't care about the women." A rare moment of honesty, that.

[Magdalene]

Something that I have to admit surprises me is this...in the strip mall where my beauty salon is, there's a fairly new Planned Parenthood (I think it's been there about two months now--and in futher irony, the 'business' in that office immediately prior was the New Faith Tabernacle Church or some such. Enjoy the irony.)

Out of curiousity, I looked at the website, and that particular Planned Parenthood location actually *performs* abortions--not just does referrals like some, but does perform them. (Per the website.)

What surprises me is as often as I've been to the salon, I've yet to see any protesters at that Planned Parenthood location. The location is a mile and a half from my house, and right on my block are easily five or six different churches--Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Seventh-Day Adventist...and I'm not sure what the others are. You'd think that'd be a 'ripe' situation for these churches to grab volunteers and trot the mile and a half down the road to go protest. But I've been to the salon about four times since the Planned Parenthood opened there and I've seen nothing out of the ordinary. It's almost as if nobody even realizes it's there. (Which is fine by me.)

But still, you'd think with all these churches--several of them known for their hardline stance against abortion--so nearby, it'd've come to their attention that there is an abortion provider 'in their backyard' by now.

Magdalene

[gopher]

Originally Posted by Magdalene

But still, you'd think with all these churches--several of them known for their hardline stance against abortion--so nearby, it'd've come to their attention that there is an abortion provider 'in their backyard' by now.

Magdalene

Maybe they have finally gotten to the bits of the Bible about doing unto others and that what you do to the least you do to me. You know, the good stuff.

[GenYus234]

Not to half-empty your glass, but it may be because it is in a strip mall. Strip malls are often private property, which could mean that the protestors would be tresspassing if they are on the mall's property outside the facility. Which would mean they'd have to protest from the public sidewalk, which could be far enough away as to be ineffective.

[TurquoiseGirl]

Originally Posted by Magdalene

What surprises me is as often as I've been to the salon, I've yet to see any protesters at that Planned Parenthood location. The location is a mile and a half from my house, and right on my block are easily five or six different churches--Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Seventh-Day Adventist...and I'm not sure what the others are. You'd think that'd be a 'ripe' situation for these churches to grab volunteers and trot the mile and a half down the road to go protest. But I've been to the salon about four times since the Planned Parenthood opened there and I've seen nothing out of the ordinary. It's almost as if nobody even realizes it's there. (Which is fine by me.)

Not all churches are antichoice. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, while being against abortion in principle, realizes that it is a complex issue. I wouldn't expect to see members protesting, since their stance seems to be to influence other societal changes that would make abortion less prevalent. With the Missouri or Wisconsin synod folks, however, I would expect to see people screaming.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Magdalene

Something that I have to admit surprises me is this...in the strip mall where my beauty salon is, there's a fairly new Planned Parenthood (I think it's been there about two months now--and in futher irony, the 'business' in that office immediately prior was the New Faith Tabernacle Church or some such. Enjoy the irony.)

You're still in Colorado, right?

Our front range protesters are very set in their ways. They have specific clinics they protest at and they ignore others.

The community of protesters, be they the Catholics or the Protestants, are VERY group-bound, so you really don't see a whole lot of independent action. They stay with their herds.

[Rebochan]

Originally Posted by TurquoiseGirl

I disagree. I find it absolutely hypocritical to claim the right to protect your property with lethal force, but not your right to do so to protect your body or your dreams or ability to provide for your family against a potential human being.

I mainly just find it funny because the core of Libertarianism always seems to be all about the right of the individual and damn the consequences...but of course, the rights of a woman are secondary to their own precious sensibilities.