Supreme irony

There is a supreme irony in the Supreme Court's decision that says no buffer zone is needed to protect the entrances and access to clinics where abortions are done.   The case being heard was presented as a group of very concerned anti-abortion people who simply want to have a quiet conversation to let those entering know there are alternatives and encourage them to consider them.

And, if some protesters get a bit rowdy, the clinic should just ask the police to get the people to calm down.    Well, we've all seen the evidence on tv that "quiet conversations" is not the problem.   It's the actual physical obstruction of the entrance, the huge signs thrust in the faces showing fetuses and horrible mangling, the viciously angry crowds screaming insult and threats, the violence and, yes, the murders.   That is the reality on the ground.

If it were simply a matter of different interpretations of the constitution, that would not be so hard to take.   What I see as a pattern is that they seem oblivious to the real world consequences -- just as in this case.   Quiet conversations is so far what what is actually the problem, it seems as though they are not really listening.  It leaves us feeling that we have not been heard.

But I have argued previously about the justices lack of considering the real consequences of their decisions.   This is about the irony of them denying a buffer zone, while at the same time their prior decisions have:

1.  Allowed buffer zones to be established at funerals of returning soldiers killed in our wars.

2.  Allowed buffer zones and restricted protest areas around political conventions.

3.  Approved laws that protect schools and churches from having bars within a certain distance.

4.  And the greatest irony of all:

The Supreme Court justices issued this ruling from behind their own buffer zone.   There are very strict regulations concerning the plaza in front of the entrance to the court building itself.  These regulations are justified to allow “unimpeded ingress and egress of visitors to the court” and to preserve “the appearance of the court as a body not swayed by external influence.”

If the court gave the same privilege to abortion clinics that it gives itself, that would be quite sufficient to take care of the situation.

But it did not do that.

Ralph