Letters to the Editor

To the editors:

On Feb. 3, in “Rebuffing the Buffer Zones,” the Crimson staff urged the Massachusetts Supreme Court “to err on the side of the freedom of speech.” Experience has taught me that the 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics in Massachusetts places no inhibition on freedom of speech.

Last summer, I found myself in need of the emergency contraception pill and thanked my lucky stars that I live in an era when such services are readily available.  At 7:15 a.m. on a Saturday morning, I arrived at Planned Parenthood on Constitution Avenue in Boston. Around the door in a semi-circle with a 35-foot diameter stood a group of geriatric protestors. I was impressed—I felt industrious for having googled “Planned Parenthood” before 7 a.m.  These fine citizens had already managed to print out huge signs with pictures of dead babies, botched abortions, and smiling infants with red “X”s across their faces. One kind gentleman went so far as to shake a bloody Crucifix in my direction, yelling, “You don’t have to do this! There is another way!” Others yelled “slut,” “you’ll burn,” and “please, think of the children!”

Now, I’m no Constitutional expert, but these folks’ speech did not seem particularly restricted.  Freedom of speech is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.  The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. I’m sure that if it were common practice to protest prostate exams, then buffer zones would be mandated around urology clinics.  But we live in a society where I published this anonymously due to fear of retribution, and women who seek reproductive healthcare are subject to public scrutiny and eternal damnation.

Freedom of speech is vital, and the risk of being publicly insulted is the price we pay for it. The buffer zone still makes it possible for people to insult and shame individuals who are simply trying to seek medical care.  It also critically protects those individuals from intimidation and possible physical harm.

The Crimson editorial attempted to pull on the heartstrings of readers by citing Benjamin Franklin and “a peaceful, 77-year-old lady” who just wants to protest abortion clinics from a few yards closer. But—sorry not sorry—I don’t feel bad that the people who want to call me a slut have to strain their voices.

Anonymous

Editors' note: The author of the preceding letter has been granted anonymity due to the intensely personal nature of the letter's content.

To the editor:

Upon reading the Feb. 3 staff editorial, “Rebuffing the Buffer Zones,” I am hurt and appalled. This staff editorial implies that all abortion protesters should be entitled to get within a few feet of women seeking abortions in Massachusetts. This assertion, based purely on a shaky application of the First Amendment, ignores the fact that women seeking abortions should be entitled to a degree of personal safety that would not be attainable without a 35-foot buffer between them and anti-choice protesters.

According to the National Abortion Federation, there have been eight documented murders outside of abortion clinics since 1977. Additionally, there have been over 140 documented cases of stalking—defined as “the persistent following, threatening, and harassing of an abortion provider, staff member, or patient away from the clinic”—outside of U.S. clinics since 2012.

Buffer zones are designed to protect women seeking abortions from violations of their safety, personal space, and privacy, while also allowing anti-abortion protesters to voice their opinions and share their information at a safe distance. These buffer zones are becoming an increasingly popular method of compromise: dealing with tension between protesters, who have a right to voice their opinions outside the clinic, and patients, who have a right to feel safe as they enter and exit the clinic.

The buffer zone itself is a compromise—it is unnecessary and illogical to further compromise the safety of those seeking abortions by shrinking the buffer zone size to eight feet.

Martha M. Walz, president of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, described the buffer zone as small, explaining that the court-contested area is only “the last seven seconds of a patient’s or a staff member’s walk to the door.” Why would it be necessary to shrink these 35 feet any further, especially with such a history of violence and violation?

While many prefer to characterize all abortion protesters as innocent, 77-year-old grandmothers, the Anti-Defamation League has characterized anti-abortion violence as “America’s forgotten terrorism,” citing incidents in 2011 and 2012 involving Molotov cocktails that were thrown at clinics. The Guttmacher Institute reports that in 2008, among clinics that performed 400 or more abortions a year, 88 percent reported anti-abortion picketing. Thirty-seven percent reported anti-abortion picketing that involved physical contact with patients. This violation of safety and personal space is unacceptable.

The Supreme Court held in the 1994 case Madsen v. Women’s Health Center that “the First Amendment does not demand that patients at a medical facility undertake Herculean efforts to escape the cacophony of political protest.” Forty-one states, including Massachusetts, have passed restrictions on abortion.

As women’s reproductive rights remain under attack, women seeking abortions likely know the weight of their decisions when they arrive at clinics. The Guttmacher Institute reports that half of all abortion patients are between the ages of 15 and 24. It is time for us, as college students, to recognize the rights of our peers seeking abortions who should not be forced to endure verbal and physical attacks for their personal decisions.

Brianna J. Suslovic ’16