Protest outside of abortion clinics. Does it go to far?

[Gorrath]

It's kinda against the law to film or photograph someone without their consent, especially if it's something involving sensitive information like medical treatments.

In the states, most states allow filming in public of people in public under "reasonable expectation of privacy." Hell, in some states, you can film someone through their windows legally.

Not that I support this, but I'm just pointing out where MA may be coming from.

I think the bigger issue is the bit where, as MA also mentions, these protests often get physical and/or violent. And they're often given a lot of lattitude because it's framed as a "freedom of religion" thing. Again, not "ought to be," but "is."

I don't want to come off like I'm supporting the act but I think it's a bit disingenuous to speak about the physicality/violence of anti-abortion rallies when rallies of many types have this issue. I don't say this to excuse the practice but if we are to use this as an argument to put special restrictions on anti-abortion rallies with regard to where they can be held, it would be terribly unfair not to apply the same rules to any rallies which could become physical or violent. And since you can see that kind of stuff come out of Brony conventions, I'm not sure what kind would possibly be excluded from expanded rules. Any attempt to restrict anti-abortion rallies this way and not apply the rules universally then comes off as a political move masquerading as "safety."

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't want to come off like I'm supporting the act but I think it's a bit disingenuous to speak about the physicality/violence of anti-abortion rallies when rallies of many types have this issue.

Not when it requires false equivalence to pretend this is as remotely common or as remotely protected, which is the other part of the issue I just raised. This is the usual "there are crazies on both/all sides" stuff that's great for false moderacy but does nothing to actually address issues.

 

[Gorrath]

I don't want to come off like I'm supporting the act but I think it's a bit disingenuous to speak about the physicality/violence of anti-abortion rallies when rallies of many types have this issue.

Not when it requires false equivalence to pretend this is as remotely common or as remotely protected, which is the other part of the issue I just raised. This is the usual "there are crazies on both/all sides" stuff that's great for false moderacy but does nothing to actually address issues.

In what way is it a false equivalence? If people want to seriously suggest that anti-abortion rallies not be allowed with in a certain distance of what they are protesting due to safety concerns they ought well be banging that same drum for rallies based on racial issues, which too get mumbled apologetics in an attempt to contextualize said violence. I dare say there are plenty of rallies for issues that have a tendency to get far more violent than anti-abortion rallies, including the smashing and burning of shops, that will still get their fair share of contextualization. To seriously represent that anti-abortion rallies be held to a specific kind of rule about where they are held that other sort of rallies, even ones far more likely to lead to violence, don't have to, looks a lot like special pleading for the sake of snuffing out dissenter's opinions by holding their rallies to rules no one else has to follow.

But I'm game, if you can show me that anti-abortion rallies are commonly particularly violent affairs with significant apologetics on display in defense of said violence as compared to all other kinds of rallies then it won't be special pleading. In the wake of violent protests with regard to the police of late and the number of people willing to contextualize said violence, I'd say you've a mighty hill to climb.

Edit: Did some digging myself to try and look into the claims a bit more and I'm not sure what or who you're attributing this "commonly protected" claim to. There have been cases were special laws have been put in place to keep anti-abortion rallies in check which seems in line with the kinds of things they do when other types of rallies get out of hand. What's more, even some of the most virulently anti-abortion groups in the U.S. have condemned the violence, such as the American Family Association and Family Research Council, both of which are considered hate groups by the SPLC.

Meanwhile, you've got some of the New Black Panthers trying to literally incite the murder of children. I am failing to see the false equivalence but again, I am open to seeing more sources countering this if you can provide them.

Here are mine:

http://www.bpnews.net/1965/fatal-abortion-clinic-bombing-condemned-by-prolife-leaders

New Black Panthers and racial violence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDb2byj74oY

 

[harrisongrimms]

After I read the Cracked interview with an abortion clinic worker like half a year ago, yes I can say it does go too far.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-you-learn-escorting-women-into-abortion-clinic/

 

[Gorrath]

Meanwhile, you've got some of the New Black Panthers trying to literally incite the murder of children. I am failing to see the false equivalence but again, I am open to seeing more sources countering this if you can provide them.

Here are mine:

http://www.bpnews.net/1965/fatal-abortion-clinic-bombing-condemned-by-prolife-leaders

New Black Panthers and racial violence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDb2byj74oY

Hey hey, I'm currently working on a reply to your post (late night working with mental health things + working all day, and abortion posts are not something I half-ass), but I will point out that the New Black Panthers have been decried by the original Black Panthers for not being about race and are classified as a 'Hate Group' due to focusing more on violence than discussions of racial issues.

Right, that's precisely why I chose them since AFA and FRC are both also classified as hate groups by the SPLC. I am not representing that this makes what goes on at abortion clinics okay, I am simply pointing out that coming up with special rules for anti-abortion rallies to follow, because of the mere chance of violence or harassment erupting, comes off as a political move if we don't apply those same rules to other rallies which also have a history of becoming violent. The claim I responded to seemed to suggest that this special treatment of anti-abortion rallies was justified because they are in some way more likely to be violent than comparable rallies and that there are a lot of people playing apologetics for the violence at anti-abortion rallies.

If we don't apply this thinking or new rules evenly to address safety and violence and single out anti-abortion rallies, it comes off as being politically motivated rather than a genuine concern about safety. My post was merely meant to demonstrate that there are other types of protests and rallies which do have a history of violence and apologetics/support of said violence. The fact that two of the most influential hate groups in the abortion debate, AFA and FRC decry the violence in abortion rallies where as two of the most influential hate groups when it comes to race issues, The New Black Panthers and Farrakhan's group encourage the violence helps illustrate this.

I hope that clarifies what I'm saying here. I'm merely calling for proposed rules to be fair and binding lest they be seen, rightfully, as a political move masquerading as concern over safety. I don't think that's unreasonable of me.

Edit: Also, thanks for taking the time to reply to my big post. I never take it personally if people chose not to respond, so whether you came back with a long, detailed post or decided not to reply at all I'd think no less of you. I don't necessarily think we need to argue about abortion itself. I posted my feelings just to show how one could have a fully rational debate on the pro-life side, bereft of dogma and allowing for nuance but I would be happy to read and consider any reply you make!

 

[geK0]

This should really be in R&P I think, it's a pretty heavy topic.

my two cents:

They should be free to protest but any behavior which constitutes harassment should be addressed and punished.

The clinics have every right to bar entry to their facilities and enforce a buffer zone.


The imagery they use on their signs is exactly that, imagery; it really isn't that big a deal.

 

[DerangedHobo]

Educating The Public

Wait wait wait, does this mean I can counter protest with a Schopenhauer picket in one hand and a picture of a dying African in the other claiming I'm "educating the public"?

Aside from that, provided you peaceably assemble, I can't hate it (even if I do disagree with the views) but public indecency with graphic imagery can take their toys and go home. The moment someone starts harassing people over it, they can gladly get dragged off to the police station.

 

[fenrizz]

Those are not protest, it is harassment and should be illegal.
Standing outside an abortion clinic and shouting abuse is not protest, it is harassment.

The goal is not to change laws, but to harass people going in/out of the clinic.

 

[Gorrath]

Alright, I'm home from work, so I can respond! Though I warn you, I am moderately tired while writing this, so it may veer around a little. Apologies in advance if it doesn't really address anything?

Thanks again for taking the time. I'm really pleased to see that we can talk about this subject with respect for one another. I'm a bit of an activist when I'm not posting on gaming forums so I can tell you just how hard it is to have any kind of reasonable discussion on this issue with most people.

It's kinda fascinating really, since we've got you here as a Pro-Life Scientist, Akjosch is kicking around the pro-choice religious aspect and my view of abortion is from a pro-choice social aspect - namely that abortion and childcare is a very complicated thing that impacts peoples lives and isn't something that is very easily decided.

It does seem an oddity, especially since nearly everyone I've ever seen who's pro-life is pro-life for primarily religious reasons. For me it comes down to a question of rights, science and philosophy all three of which, to me, point toward the pro-life stance as being preferable. This is why my pro-life stance isn't an ultimatum without nuance because it is driven by evidence and philosophy instead of dogmatic belief.

Weirdly, I don't actually have many dogs in the Pro-Life fight - it's a discussion worth having and there's lots of evidence flying around from either side for definitions of when life 'starts' (at base level I'm of the 'current abortion system is fine' in that regard), but I've always focused more on the motivations people have for getting abortions and why having abortions as an option is important.

There are a lot of people fighting over the "when does life start" question and I find it rather silly to be honest. BY every scientific definition of life we have, life starts at conception. Now people can argue over whether that life should have rights but to claim it "isn't alive" is basically making up a definition of life out of nowhere. This seems to be the only debate I've ever been involved in where the scientific definition of life suddenly does not apply, and only because people don't want it to. Not accusing you of that of course since you didn't weigh in on that except to mention that there's a debate and you're fine with the current laws. People seem to want to come up with a special definition of life that only applies in this one arena simply because the scientific definition of life doesn't support their arguments. I find it asinine. In what other subject of discourse do people get to ignore science, make up their own definitions of things to support their arguments and are taken seriously? None, that I know of.

Because, let's face it, people get abortions for a number of reasons. Situations where the childbirth will seriously hurt/kill the mother, The child has minimal chances of survival anyway or would suffer from serious medical problems that would result in a short lifespan, needing to have an abortion due to other medical issues occurring at the time... all good medical reasons.

I support the right of the mother's health over the right of the child to live in most circumstances, especially since most complications from child birth make both mother and child quite susceptible to poor health/death. I also agree that if there's good reason to think the child will be born vegetative or with a minuscule lifespan or with a genetic disease so bad it will render the child incapable of independence and autonomy then abortion should be an option. I believe that we will have medical technological fixes to many of these problems in the future but for now I totally agree.

But then there's good social reasons as well - Childcare and Parenthood are not easy, simple things, mind you, they're pretty big deals that change and shape your life. If someone gets pregnant due to failed birth control (even condoms break!) and is neither prepared to raise the child personally or financially, then they should have the ability to terminate the pregnancy if they so choose. When it comes to starting a family, I'm of the mind that a child that is planned for is better than an accident from sheer circumstances. This 'not ready for pregnancy' angle is doubly so for Teen pregnancies, since those often cause a whole mess of problems and teenagers are very rarely in a positive position of becoming a parent themselves.

These are all questions of the financial/economic well being of the parents, none of which, I think, should trump a child's right to life. In no other subject of discourse of which I am aware do we represent that one person's financial well being should be held higher than someone else's right to live. Why should we de-vaule the right of a person to live in this one instance when on any other subject we'd find such statements appalling?

Socio-economic reasons may drive a significant number of people to seek abortions but many of these reasons could be mitigated through other means, such as adequate daycare, proper collection and distribution of child support, social programs aimed at helping single parents, ect. I should think that terminating the life of a person to be the least appropriate way to deal with the social and economic issues faced by parents. We don't accept socio-economic reasons to strip anyone else of their civil rights in any other case. In fact, we've spent huge amounts of time and effort trying to ensure that no one has their rights stricken so someone else can gain an economic advantage. Why should I, or you, or anyone accept such reasoning here and literally under no other circumstance?

Then there's the stickier parts of abortion - like, say, Rape Babies. Now this is a sticky subject since discussions around rape are incredibly difficult to have to begin with (like, in America there's several states where a Rapist can sue for legal custody of a child produced by rape - the more I learn about American law the more fucked up it gets), and get more difficult when you start throwing in possible children. The basics of it is, victims of rape *should* have the choice to have an abortion - I covered the physical above, but this is more of a mental health concern, since having a child that is the product of such a traumatic experience often reminds the victims of that trauma, puts negativity on the relationship between mother/child, can result in the child feeling extreme guilt/depression due to their origins... like, again, it's something pregnant people should entirely have the choice to terminate.

This issue and the incest issue are both very tough for the pro-life side. We cannot point toward a certain physical health issue but mental health shouldn't be ignored either. I've gone back and forth on this, between favoring the right of the child to live because it shouldn't be executed due to the crimes of its father and wanting to not put a rape victim through a pregnancy she didn't want because a crime was committed against her. I suppose this is an area I would compromise on, accepting abortion in these cases even if I'm not convinced it's fair or just to the child.

To be honest, the crux of my stance is the 'choice' aspect - people should have the choice, regardless of the debate surrounding it. Just like how people have the choice to put the kid up for adoption, or get a surrogate parent, they should also have the choice to say 'No, I'm not ready for pregnancy at this stage of my life' for whatever reason*, and their choice should be respected. This isn't to say that the discussion surrounding Pro-Life and abortion isn't an important one to have, it's just that unless you happen to be a Pro-lifer/anti-choicer, it should come secondary to your own beliefs when it comes down to deciding whether to have an abortion or not.

I'm not willing to accept that because of what's at stake. If someone argued to me that keeping and owning slaves should be a choice I wouldn't agree, because it would violate the slaves life and liberty. If someone were to argue that states should have a choice whether or not to allow gay marriage, I would disagree because that would violate the civil rights of the gay population. In no debate about civil rights and liberties would I accept that one person's choice should override someone else's rights, especially their right to live and especially because the child has done literally nothing on its own to be in the situation it finds itself. I've yet to find an argument for blanket pro-choice that I, or almost anyone else, would accept under any other circumstances and so, I don't see why such arguments should be compelling here. I think the only way to get around this problem is to argue that the child should have no rights whatsoever until it is born, which I still find totally arbitrary and without justification, but it is a least internally consistent.

Now, that's probably a little 'appealy-to-emotion', but as said, I'm approaching this from a social aspect rather than a scientific or legal aspect, and I'm admittedly fairly tied into the debate on an emotional level due to several of my friends undergoing abortions for assorted reasons (ranging from medical to financial to just sheer not ready for childbirth). Objectivity isn't really my strong suit for abortion, but I *think* my first few posts may have been a subtle hint at that. >.>

I've had friends who've had abortions and I've been right there with them. I will always support them emotionally and be there for them in that time of need. While I disagree with the blanket pro-choice laws because I think they unfairly and improperly infringe on the rights of the unborn I will not be blinded to the emotional difficulties involved and the complexities of the situation. I see no reason to be cruel to people just because they are exercising their legal rights, even if I don't agree with the laws as written.

(though, as an answer to your legal queries, those are situations of 'assumed birth' - so rather than treating the fetus as a fetus, it's considered 'Well lets look at it under the assumption the baby is born healthy'; so for inheritance it's assumed the child will be born to inherent things, while for the case of murder it's assumed the mother wasn't planning on terminating the baby. 'Assumed birth' is probably the wrong term for it though, just as a heads up if you plan on looking into it yourself.)

I find that to be splitting hairs a bit because in most cases of abortion we can assume the child would be born fine and healthy too. We legally extend rights to the unborn fetus not to a presumed, after-the-birth person which does not currently exist. If someone wants to argue that an unborn child should have no right to life then I find it absurd that the same person could argue that such a child could be murdered. You can't murder something that doesn't have a right to live in the first place.

I find the distinction between born and unborn, in most cases, to be weak legal and philosophical justification for denying rights but especially so when we extend all kinds of rights except this one, the right to life, and then only when a mother's choice is involved. It really does boil down to whether a mother's blanket right to choose should trump a child's right to life. And when faced with that, I say no, because I can see no justification for it and all justifications I've ever seen offered look pretty weak. Every justification seems to be predicated on accepting arguments that I would never accept under any other circumstance and the only distinction offered between this situation on those is that unborn humans shouldn't have rights, except for all the ones they do, and actually it's just this one right and actually it's just this one right in this one situation. Even if you don't agree, can you see why I don't find that compelling?

[sub]*I know people have already trotted out the stereotype of 'oh I'll just abort as my birth control', which is a pretty malicious stereotype that very few people actually exhibit since, well, abortions are still pretty strenuous. Now I certainly disagree with anyone who is just getting abortions for the sake of it/replacement of birth control, since it's an abuse of the actual choice, but they tend to be the extreme minority and as such I'm not really too fussed with such an all-encompassing statement like 'whatever reason'.[/sub]

I won't stoop to that because I don't find it necessary to defend my position. Why someone chooses to exercise their legal rights doesn't matter much to me. Even if practically everyone who got an abortion did it because their birth control failed I wouldn't matter to me. Either the child has a right to life or it doesn't. If we do not extend this right to the unborn then speculation on the mother's reasoning is a pointless endeavor. If we do extend this right to the unborn, then the reasoning becomes very important because then we have a conflict that needs resolution; the life, rights, well-being of the mother vs. that of the unborn child.

Anyway, I hope you find my reply worthwhile. It's a complex situation and I'm a bit of a wind-bag so I appreciate your time and attention. Thanks for taking the time to understand my point of view as I understand yours, even if we never agree. With sincerity.

 

[Ishigami]

My thoughts?

First of my stance on abortion:
I think it is the decision of the pregnant women.
I am alright with a compromise of course. I would consider it reasonable to let the to-be-mother decide up until the point where the unborn child becomes capable of surviving outside of the mother's womb.
After that I deem it reasonable to consider abortion illegal, the to-be-mother would then have to give birth and release the child to adoption if it is still unwanted.
No rules without exception of course e.g. medical complications etc.

As for the demonstrations: I think it is wrong.
The way I see it they shame women into obedience. This is a harassment campaign similar to a running of the gauntlet.
Should they be able to voice their opinion publically? Yes, of course. But I see no reason why this has to be done right at the entrance of such a clinic.
If they want their opinion to be heard it can be done elsewhere.

I have no idea how this works in the UK. Here you need some sort of permit for a demonstration.
The city can basically demand certain changes to the organization in order to ensure safety.
So basically I doubt a law change would be required in my country to prevent something like this from happening, just some common sense by the civil servants working the files.
Then again I don't think we got something like specific abortion clinics (but I might be wrong). That service is provided afaik by hospitals and gynecologists in general. As I see it there are simply no specific boiling points unless you want to actually protest hospitals... in which case the general public probably not going to favor your position...
Anyway while we are having this debate too (from time to time) I don't see this kind of demonstration happening. So yea a buffer zone seems like a possible solution.

 

[Patrick Buck]

I'm against it. You can protest, at Parliament where laws can be changed, but protesting at clinics is attacking people, rather than a thing you disagree with. And that's wrong whatever you believe.

For the record, I'm personally pro choice.

 

[Callate]

They have a right to protest. But taking photos or videos of people without their permission is harassment. And given the recurrent violence and threats those going into or working for clinics that provide abortion have faced, firmly set, legally enforced buffer zones are entirely reasonable and appropriate.

I have a lot more sympathy for such restrictions than I do for so-called "free speech zones" as used by political figures.

 

[ecoho]

Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Expression. Freedom of Choice. Freedom of its not any of your damn business what people do in their person lives.

Thanks America. Now the UK has a growing rise of pro choice protest. Let's hope it doesn't get to the point of bombs. Pro choice, pro life. The battle will never go away.

http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/21/abortion-clinic-forced-to-close-after-protests-in-uk-first-5306145/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/30126873/calls-for-law-to-stop-anti-abortion-protests-outside-clinics

Protest, whether you agree with them or not, can cause a lot of awareness and change to a matter. But did this protest go to far? Even stories about those who go into an abortion clinic being filmed and shamed online is a massively fucked up tactic that is heartless and disgusting. I personally believe that people have the choice to do as they which and women who seek termination has different reasons for it. It's not the protesters business. By adding buffer zone does that infringe on the protesters freedom of Speech? Does verbal protest and often abuse infringe on those who go into an abortion clinic for whatever reason have their rights infringed upon.

Thoughts, chat. What do you think?

So many freedoms are clashing.

as a catholic im against abortion, but I do believe everyone has the right to make their own choices. Now do I think they will regret it for the rest of their life? yes. Do I think that its wrong to do? yes if its not for the safety of the life of the mother. Does anyone have the right to MAKE them not have them? NO. Honestly this is a debate that could go on forever but its not our place to judge someone for their choices, that's gods job.

 

[Parasondox]

as a catholic im against abortion, but I do believe everyone has the right to make their own choices. Now do I think they will regret it for the rest of their life? yes. Do I think that its wrong to do? yes if its not for the safety of the life of the mother. Does anyone have the right to MAKE them not have them? NO. Honestly this is a debate that could go on forever but its not our place to judge someone for their choices, that's gods job.

Then someone better tell the protesters that because they seem to be holding bibles, praying and judging people they do not know. I understand people take things a bit too far and harassment and abuse shouldn't be one of them.

 

[ecoho]

as a catholic im against abortion, but I do believe everyone has the right to make their own choices. Now do I think they will regret it for the rest of their life? yes. Do I think that its wrong to do? yes if its not for the safety of the life of the mother. Does anyone have the right to MAKE them not have them? NO. Honestly this is a debate that could go on forever but its not our place to judge someone for their choices, that's gods job.

Then someone better tell the protesters that because they seem to be holding bibles, praying and judging people they do not know. I understand people take things a bit too far and harassment and abuse shouldn't be one of them.

well to be fair most of those people are protestants not Catholics. the big difference is we tend to just say its wrong and go our own way afterwards, while those guys freak out on something until;

1. they get what they want.

2. get told by a judge to stop.


Now that's not to say we don't use our political base to try and ban things we are against we do but at least we don't harass people to do it, we harass politicians

 

[J Tyran]

Abortion clinics are medical facilities, people have the right to attend them with as much privacy and dignity as possible. Excluding protesters from or near them doesn't impinge on free speech, the public have plenty of public places or government buildings, including Westminster to protest outside/around.

 

[Parasondox]

as a catholic im against abortion, but I do believe everyone has the right to make their own choices. Now do I think they will regret it for the rest of their life? yes. Do I think that its wrong to do? yes if its not for the safety of the life of the mother. Does anyone have the right to MAKE them not have them? NO. Honestly this is a debate that could go on forever but its not our place to judge someone for their choices, that's gods job.

Then someone better tell the protesters that because they seem to be holding bibles, praying and judging people they do not know. I understand people take things a bit too far and harassment and abuse shouldn't be one of them.

well to be fair most of those people are protestants not Catholics. the big difference is we tend to just say its wrong and go our own way afterwards, while those guys freak out on something until;

1. they get what they want.

2. get told by a judge to stop.


Now that's not to say we don't use our political base to try and ban things we are against we do but at least we don't harass people to do it, we harass politicians

Good point but really, truly and in all honesty, what do they hope to achieve? A total nationwide ban on abortion? Convince half the population that their fellow gender members are bad bad people for having abortions even if they were raped or just ban sex all together for single folks? Okay, I am overreacting a bit but how far is their version of the "good fight" meant to go.

That weren't just a question at you but anyone in general who can answer that.

 

[J Tyran]

Abortion clinics are medical facilities, people have the right to attend them with as much privacy and dignity as possible. Excluding protesters from or near them doesn't impinge on free speech, the public have plenty of public places or government buildings, including Westminster to protest outside/around.

I don't see how it can be justified, taping and harassing people in a medical context.

Couldn't agree more, there is absolutely no justification for it no matter how people feel. Free speech isn't about having the right to create any disturbance you wish or harass anyone someone chooses too its about expressing your feelings, Westminster make the laws and set the policy here in the UK and any problems with either should be taken to them.

 

[FoolKiller]

Abortions are like gay marriages. If you don't like it, don't get one.

A lot of pro-life arguments revolve around this:

You know the old saying, "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" Apparently it doesn't matter because eggs are chickens. If they cared so much for the "sanctity of life" why don't they protest outside of battery farms? Or churches that preach hate or spread ignorance in Africa about contraception, resulting in the spreading of AIDS?

I think protesting abortion clinics goes "too far" as soon as it starts because it's the result of a fundamental misconception that an embryo is a citizen. It also reflects a sort of "let's sort the problem out later" attitude. A solution to perceived inevitable misery or discomfort on the child's part is condemned because "it's icky". The same goes for gay adoption, something pro-lifers often oppose.

They have the right to protest and I have the right to call them out on their nonsense.

I've always thought that if it's truly alive, it should be able to survive, given proper care, outside of the host body. If not, it's still a parasite.

Also, regarding violent protesters, they say they are pro-life but don't seem to care for the lives of those they attack.

 

[Gorrath]

Abortion clinics are medical facilities, people have the right to attend them with as much privacy and dignity as possible. Excluding protesters from or near them doesn't impinge on free speech, the public have plenty of public places or government buildings, including Westminster to protest outside/around.

It doesn't impinge on free speech but it may impinge on freedom of assembly, in the United States anyhow. I find the whole thing deplorable but people are allowed to be assholes even in protest. So long as the protesters aren't breaking any laws their right to assembly shouldn't be excluded and I would extend that to any group of people protesting anything they want to. I've been a part of demonstrations outside of a Church which raised money to help try and get gay marriage banned and people said the same things about us; that we should go somewhere else even though we were on public property, that we were "harassing" them just by being there with protest signs. I do not condone any illegal protest actions and you certainly see some of that at abortion protests. The offenders should be removed and charged if necessary but the protesters who aren't doing anything illegal should be allowed their rights.