In the wake of the unanimous Supreme Court Decision in McCullen v. Coakley, which ruled Massachusetts’ 30 foot buffer zone of restricted speech and opinions around abortion clinics unconstitutional, the Attorney General, the Governor, and their allies in the legislature and pro-abortion lobby are scrambling to find some way of continuing to restrict the free speech of pro-life sidewalk counselors.
In a recent press conference, General Coakley and other supporters of censorship, attempted to portray the buffer zone as a safety issue. Their argument is that the grandmothers, working moms, retired men, and other caring individuals who take time out of their busy schedules to work at the thankless task of attempting to get information about abortion alternatives to women in crisis are simply too violent and unpredictable to be allowed on public sidewalks near the door of an abortion facility.
Obviously, the public arguments by the pro-abortion side are being made purely for propaganda purposes. In sober truth, the true purpose is to restrict and punish dissent from the prevailing anti-life orthodoxy of our government.
Pro-lifers need to remain vigilant against attempts to stifle our message. All citizens should be wary of attempts to restrict freedom of speech, a necessary right for retaining our liberty and controlling our government, no matter who the targets may be.
On the Fourth we were reminded that we have rights and it is “to secure these rights, [that] Governments are instituted among Men.” If you are the chief law enforcement officer of a state and an elected official and you find yourself straining for methods to more subtly restrict your fellow citizens from exercising their rights, it might be time to wonder if you’re doing it wrong.