They are carted away. If they resist, they are arrested.

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

If this was Clinton then you guys would say that barring the protestors from protesting near the president was legit. Let me tell you have another example of protestors. A few years ago 20 or so people stood outside an abortion clinic they were peacefully protesting, and they were outside the boundaries set up by the city. They all got taken to jail... so please don't give me this crap that president bush is trying to take our civil rights away. I’m sure Clinton had the same deal. It’s not that I’m saying it doesn’t seam a little iffy but you guys have got to stop such nonsense and blame bush for all your problems.

__________________
I never ask for tolerance because as soon as someone asks for it they’re not being tolerant

When asked about Kerry's invitation to debate on the issues, George Bush responded, "We'll talk about that when Senator Kerry is finished debating the issues with himself."

What makes you say that? What has anyone here said that would give you the impression that we believe the constitutional violations we complain of are a result of our distaste for Bush?

Big difference. First of all, protestors are allowed to protest behind "buffer zones." No one is arrested so long as they stay behind that barrier. Many people DO get arrested at abortion clinics because they harrass the women exercising their legal right to abortion be "getting into the face" of the women, or running into the clinic to harass the women, or by throwing stuff at the workers, or some other conduct that unduly burdens the right of the women exercise their rights.

A President intentionally places himself into the public arena by choosing to run for office. It is understood and reasonable that protest will follow his actions. Conversely, a woman opting for an abortion is in a terribly compromised position and the emotions attendant these women are equally terrible. The protestors take what should be a private medical procedure and make it as public as possible. They block cars, they block the entrance way, hold up disgusting and horrific signs, scream terrible insults, run into the clinics and harass the women in the operating rooms, take their pictures, etc...

And, still, the protestors have a constitutional right to assemble and do what they do. In doing so, they make what is probably the worst day of these women's lives MUCH worse. Too bad they don't have a secret service that will protect their feelings by removing all protest.

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

Did I mention they were outside the buffer zone peacefully praying?
And it's that a big generalization when you said
"The protestors take what should be a private medical procedure and make it as public as possible. They block cars, they block the entrance way, hold up disgusting and horrific signs, scream terrible insults, run into the clinics and harass the women in the operating rooms, take their pictures, etc..."
Since you think all protectors are harassers then I would have thought that would agree that we should not have people harass the president... or are you going back on what you said again!?
"First of all, protestors are allowed to protest behind 'buffer zones.' " so you have no problem with haveing a buffer zone right?

__________________
I never ask for tolerance because as soon as someone asks for it they’re not being tolerant

When asked about Kerry's invitation to debate on the issues, George Bush responded, "We'll talk about that when Senator Kerry is finished debating the issues with himself."

A President, by engaging in professional politics, puts himself into the public arena. Accepting protest is part of the job. Also, the President must be at least 35 and in reality, is usually much older. Do you really think that a young girl (which most of them tend to be) who is engaging in a legal, yet terribly embarassing procedure should be as thick-skined as a professional politician whose job performance is being protested?

Anti-Abortion protestors often refuse to stay behind the buffer-zones. They have the mind-set that God needs their help to stop the evil of abortion and the laws of man is irrelevant.

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

So you are going back on what you said... it doesn't matter what person it is or type of person EVERYONE should not have to stand by while there harassed, I don't know how harassing someone with thick skin is any different that harassing someone else, it's still against the law right?

Btw if someone truly thinks an abortion is ok then why would they be more embarrassed to have an abortion than to be pregnant?

Anti-Bush protestors often refuse to stay behind the buffer-zones. They have the mind-set that people need their help to stop the evil of Bush and the laws of man is irrelevant. (Hmmm)

__________________
I never ask for tolerance because as soon as someone asks for it they’re not being tolerant

When asked about Kerry's invitation to debate on the issues, George Bush responded, "We'll talk about that when Senator Kerry is finished debating the issues with himself."

Hmmm. I don't know. Is there anything that says you have the right to peacefully assemble anywhere you want? I mean, they're still allowed to peacefully assemble, they just can't do it in front of the President. After all, protesters can't just stand around, they have to keep moving due to loitering laws - we don't consider that unconstitutional. And this isn't nearly as bad as what Wilson and the DC police did to the women who protested for suffrage in front of the White House.

All that tripe just written notwithstanding, I'm against this practice.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

When you combine the two first amendment protections the secret service is abridging (right to assembly and right to free speech), it is especially odious. NO COURT would ever uphold an arrest based on refusing to move when the only reason the protestor is ordered to move is content based. If I were ever to protest, I would make them arrest me and then I would sue the federal governemnt in Federal Court for violations of my rights under color of law...and I would win.

People don't have to keep moving to avoid running afoul of the anti-loitering laws; they have to be able to give a reason for why they are there (satisfactory explanation of his presence). If I go outside and sit on the sidewalk in front of my house, a police office can't force me to leave under the anti-loitering statutes if I have a reason why I am there (I like to greet my neighbors everyday, for example). The police often threaten loitering charges to disperse people, but the fact is that they are often dismissed or not persued.

Everyone should be against it. If people are stopped from peaceably assembling to protest, what rights will the government taken next?

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

"No one is [should be] arrested so long as they stay behind that barrier." startup

"Everyone should be against it [people are stopped from peaceably assembling to protest]" startup

I’m sure you have the best interest of the people in mind, but you can't have it both ways. You are either for or against people being allowed to peacefully protest inside the buffer zones.

__________________
I never ask for tolerance because as soon as someone asks for it they’re not being tolerant

When asked about Kerry's invitation to debate on the issues, George Bush responded, "We'll talk about that when Senator Kerry is finished debating the issues with himself."

@F_R_O_G

I would love to see a link to the story about these "peaceful" protestors getting arrested.

And as it has been said earlier, the two cases discussed here (Bush/abortion) are not similar. I have an example from my own country:

Anti-fur farming activists harassed (or you could say peacefully protested against) the farmers' children saying their parents are murderers. This kind of action, naturally, don't fall in the category of free speech and the activists were given a restraining order. The protesting these anti-abortion activists that were mentioned are doing is in many ways similar to what the anti-fur activists were doing. It is more personal harassment than protesting.

__________________