First let’s be clear and not allow anyone to assert that the “reason she got arrested” or the “governemnt took away the right” is about silent prayer in your head.
It never was. The bullies who want to intimidate young women want us to think so and make that the focus of the discussion, but that is a lie they are spreading.
The PSPO, and the temporary law, is about intimidation and harrassment. And one known and previously attempted dodge was, “we’re not protesting, we’re just praying. Loudly, constantly and directly in the faces of women trying to access medical care, in order to make them turn around and leave. That is our published goal -
Intimidating them out of going about their business. But that’s not a protest,
per se, you see, it’s
just praying.”. And given that history, the word “praying” is included (but not limited to) in the order as one of the intimidation tactics that are in reality a protest that will “show either approval or disapproval” of the activities of the clients, staff or neighbors in order to intimidate them into changes their course.
They - the anti-abortion bullies - are
de-fucking-lighted when they can convince people to talk about prayer instead of intimidation. They LOVE getting allies who will divert conversations like this in their favor.
But the court is not so naive, and so it included in the order (but not limited to) all of the usual obfuscations and dodges as well as anticipating the creation of new obfuscations and dodges that these bullies are using to
intimidate and harass young women seeking medical care.
So...if the government can take away your right to pray in your head in a PSPO zone, why can't it just extend the PSPO to include the entire town?
Because in the rest of the town, outside of the path of people trying to get the medical care that these people are trying to intimidate, it won’t intimidate or harrass them and therefore is not a problem. Because, and I can’t emphasize this enough,
it is not about the prayer; it is about the harrassment.. And the law knows this, even if you don’t.
This is not rocket surgery.
Tell me, in US States where the right to abortion is gone, but women can still travel elsewhere to get one, then their rights weren't take away?
If all they have to do is go around the corner, or better yet
go home and still get their abortion, then obviously their rights are not taken away. Indeed, decades of court cases cover exactly that. If it does not cause an “undue burden,” then you have not lost any rights.
This is not rocket surgery.
. I agree that she violated the PSPO, because she was praying inside the exclusion zone, and that is specifically forbidden
No, here is where you are always wrong every time you say it, although Ms. V-S surely appreciates your pugnacious tenacity to keep bringing that up in public discourse.
She violated the PSPO
because she was intimidating and harrassing clients or staff or residents inside the exclusion zone. It was OBVIOUSLY not because she was prang in her head, because she only said “maybe” she was doing that and the cop had plenty of non-ambiguous evidence to make the arrest without that. He even explicitly says why she is being arrested: “suspicion of violating the order on this and several other occasions,” which obviously and clearly does not depend on any praying to justify since she also said she was deliberately choosing the clinic as a place to stand because it is a clinic.
So....what? Either forbidding something in a certain jurisdiction takes away rights or it doesn't.
No, that is not true as decades of law have demonstrated. If someone takes away your right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, but you retain the right to say it as often as you want to at your home, or on second base at Fenway Park, or while canoeing on the Cahulawassee River, they have not taken away your right to yell “fire.” The key here being hat if you can do it in almost every place tht you would normally be, you obviously still have the right.
It doesn't. Because if she walked around the block and stood in front of MCdonald's praying in her head she wouldn't have been arrested for violating the PSPO. So yes, she still had the freedom to pray in her head. Now if praying in her head was banned across Australia then we can talk. Until then it's a fantasy argument.
Indeed. One block away she can do it. That is not an undue burden and therefore is obviously not a “removal of rights.”
…
On another note, one has to smile a bit regarding the “power of prayer” if it requires personal intimidation to work. It sort of admits that prayer itself is utterly powerless. But that’s a side note.
