Buffer zones needed I
As an obstetrician-gynecologist, I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling in McCullen v. Coakley striking down buffer zones around reproductive health clinics in Massachusetts.
As noted in the news story “Voiding of buffer zone at abortion clinics could force Western Pa. change” , this case is not just about Massachusetts but about clinics everywhere, including in Pittsburgh, and the very real violence directed at them.
My patients can attest that the painted yellow arc of Pittsburgh's 15-foot buffer zone has not restricted the free speech of anti-choice protesters. Every day, protesters hurl insults and lies at my patients to intimidate and shame them.
Given the history of violence against abortion providers in this country, my patients are right to feel threatened by this harassment. But once my patients reach the yellow line of the buffer zone, they are ensured safe passage into the clinic. That painted arc is an important and constant physical reminder that no one has the right to physically prevent a woman from accessing safe and legal medical care.
No person, man or woman, should have to fear for his or her safety for simply walking into a medical clinic.
The Supreme Court got this one wrong; buffer zones provide critical protections for patients.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Inconsistent Wolf
- Corbett over Wolf I
- Corbett over Wolf II
- Gun questions for mayor I
- Corbett is the honest choice
- Embrace domestic energy production
- Farewell, my Springdale
- ObamaCare solution
- Shame on Wolf
- Gross in 45th
- Watson in 33rd