Stanek weekend question: What if pro-choice activists were to invade church “buffer zones”?
Be sure to take the poll at the bottom of this post!
In response to the Supreme Court’s reversal of Massachusetts’ abortion clinic buffer zone law this week, pro-choice blogger Dan Savage at TheStranger.com suggested following the lead of West Hollywood homosexual activists, who supposedly got a church to stop invading their space by turning the tables.
Savage quoted an obscenity-laden post by Rude Pundit with like-minded thoughts:
I must correct Rude Pundit that it is illegal to block a public right-of-way, irrespective of buffer zone laws.
So, word to the wise, Rude Pundit, were you to attempt some of the tactics you espouse, you would be arrested, if a church were of a persuasion to call the police.
That aside, what if angered pro-choice activists were to attempt their version of “sidewalk counseling” at your church? How would you feel about it? How do you think your church would handle it? Is there a chance you would welcome such tactics as an opportunity to reach out? Or would they give you pause to reconsider praying and protesting in front of abortion clinics?
[Photo of pro-life prayer warriors at abortion clinic via The Telegraph]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Religion is SPECIFICALLY protected by the Constitution. Not only is it protected, it is listed FIRST in the Constitution. Freedom of religion is not equal to other freedoms. It is the most important freedom.
I run the board, so I’m there early and use a back door, so no issue for me.
Lisa – practice of religion is protected, but most everything listed in the post would be allowable.
It will make it easier to pray for these poor lost souls. I am not currently involved in clinic counseling, but their actions would allow me to fit it into my schedule right at church.
I think it would be a great witness to show them that coming to church was so important to us that we would go through anything to get there. We could stand outside and pray for them them just like we would outside an abortion clinic.
Savage’s comments show what happens when you believe your own press. He isn’t suggesting that he and others engage in dialogue or counseling with those who believe in religion. He is proposing they he and others like him engage in harassment. This is how he sees pro-life sidewalk counselors — not as engaging in free speech but as engaging in harassment. This is how they have uniformly portrayed in the media and Savage engages in this conceit.
I would welcome someone to approach me on the way in to Church and attempt to counsel me. I’d welcome him or her in for our service and coffee and donuts (it’s just not a good Lutheran service without coffee and donuts afterwards); and I’d let him or her meet people and see their love.
This is my favorite part of the SCOTUS opinion:
“At the same time, however, they impose serious burdens on petitioners’ speech, depriving them of their two primary methods of communicating with arriving patients: close, personal conversations and distribution of literature. Those forms of expression have historically been closely associated with the transmission of ideas. While the Act may allow petitioners to “protest” outside the buffer zones, petitioners are not protestors; they seek not merely to express their opposition to abortion, but to engage in personal, caring, consensual conversations with women about various alternatives. It is thus no answer to say that petitioners can still be seen and heard by women within the buffer zones. If all that the women can see and hear are vociferous opponents of abortion, then the buffer zones have effectively stifled petitioners’ message.”
The Rude Pundit’s suggested methods don’t exactly fit with the above. My church would handle it by calling the police if laws were broken or the situation became unsafe. If a peaceful protest were to take place, I think prayer groups would engage the protestors. My attendance outside abortion clinics would not be affected.
We need to get used to it.
The First Amendment prevents Congress from passing laws that restrict our free exercise — but nothing prevents mobs from gathering outside our churches and peacefully protesting the existence of Christians.
And it’s coming. The persecution is coming on. Perhaps not by the general public… but they will stand by like sheep as the haters gather in retribution for our peaceful witness.
There may be vandalism at night, and even threats of riots. It has happened before, in ancient and modern times. There is no reason to believe that we are immune to persecution, here and now.
Meanwhile, we welcome the opportunity to evangelize. Bring on the pictures of women killed by illegal abortion — We have memorial pictures of women killed by legal abortion. We will mourn together. Nobody needs abortion, and no one has to die.
“I would welcome someone to approach me on the way in to Church and attempt to counsel me.”
Would you welcome that “counsel” if you were, say, on your way to get gallbladder surgery?
Trying to remember the last time I went to Church for gallbladder surgery …
Christians aren’t persecuted in the US, all conspiracy theories to the contrary regardless. And bringing up the constitutional right of freedom of religion is irrelevant, it’s NOT more important than freedom of speech and assembly, those rights are inextricably linked. So the pro-choicers may protests churches all they want as long as they don’t break actual laws.
I’d probably just chat with them unless I felt they were going to be aggressive with me. Then I’d just leave them be.
Let’s bodily block the access to the walkways that lead to the church. Let’s bring signs that have pictures of women who were killed by illegal abortions. Let’s go up to them and try to convince them to convert or go atheist, following them until we are on church property and have to stop.
This just made me laugh. How many of us are seeing atheists picketing churches now? How many hand out atheist literature to those entering a church? I would guess zero. Most atheists haven’t got the guts. They prefer to stay home, file lawsuits, and rant about religion on their blogs or in the comboxes of religious sites. What makes anyone think they’d do it with the added freedom of no buffer zone?
Pro-aborts maybe – they can at least work about a little genuine spirit of activism and outrage. But then too, many of them are churchgoers themselves, sorry to say. . .
Most atheists simply don’t care about religion, you’re talking about a specific subset of anti-theists who do those things. And a lot of atheists are involved in activism that interests them, just most of it doesn’t involve an active stance against religion.
Yes, I know Jack. That angry activist set of atheists are basically the ones I am talking about. They may talk about public confrontation, but never actually do it. I wasn’t careful enough in my distinctions. But that’s what I’ve got you for! :-)
Just got back from church as a matter of fact. Vigil of the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. Thunder, lightning and rain outside – but not on atheist in sight.
I think it would be awesome of people were mad enough at churches that they were protesting – I think it would mean that the people within the Church were concerned about impacting the world around them in an actual and meaningful way. As it is, I bet most evil likes the church – it’s a place where Christians retreat to and leave society alone. We sit inside and judge the outside world while not really engaging in it.
Sure, there are exceptions – but in general, I don’t see why atheists would bother picketing at churches – most people inside are most concerned with how loud the drums are, or what the color of the wall hangings are, or what the pastor’s wife said to them the other day.
I agree Lori, I would really be surprised if atheists picketed churches. The militant types attract the most attention but like Deluded said, most just don’t care about religion.
I haven’t been to church in years but if an atheist or militant bort approached me I would reat them like I do the PP and ACLU canvassers: smile, shake my head, and keep it moving.
My ex husband loved Dan Savage but I think he is a nasty piece of work. I hope he and the usual suspects have something to really be upset about on Monday!
“Let’s bring signs that have pictures of women who were killed by illegal abortions.”
They would run out of pictures pretty quickly, and our side can probably produce even more adult victims of legal abortion. I’d actually love to see this type of “protest” attempted–more attention on the craziness of those who do, in fact, LOVE abortion can only be good for our side!
“…What church?”
Should be an option.
“it’s a place where Christians retreat to and leave society alone. We sit inside and judge the outside world while not really engaging in it.”
Interesting comment coming from someone that thinks those Christians that ARE engaged in the world should be subjected to the HHS Mandate.
Lrning –
I’m struggling to see how the two things are related.
Please explain so that I don’t jump to conclusions.
Speak for yourself, hypocrite x.
9ek –
Yikes – take a spin through the book of James this morning.
9ek –
Could you point out exactly how I’ve been hypocritical?
Ex:
1. Your comment June 28, 2014 at 8:17 pm seemed to be a rebuke on Christians for not going out and living their faith in meaningful ways.
2. Many Christians are out in the world living their faith in meaningful ways (educating, publishing, manufacturing, providing employment, serving the poor, etc) and you’ve repeatedly stated that it’s no big deal for the US government to determine that in order to live their faith in the world, these Christians will have to violate that faith and/or their conscience.
1 + 2 = does not compute
Lrning –
#1 – yes.
#2 – I 100% would be against any effort, law, decree or anything else that I felt would cause a Christian to violate their faith.
I simply don’t believe that if a person starts a company, and files the paperwork to say that they are a company (and thus the individuals have limited liability for their actions within that company) – and the company gives something to their employees, and that employee then chooses to do something with that benefit – I don’t think that the company has a lot of moral outrage there. Heck, I believe quite firmly the various Biblical verses on people getting paid a fair wage – yet most of our household goods and clothes violate this. And heck, even Hobby Lobby themselves invest money in the companies that make the drugs that they have an issue with.
So again, I’ll be clear – if the government came out and told me that somebody in my family had to have an abortion – of that I had to drive somebody to get an abortion – I would be 100% against that law. I just don’t see either the moral issue in this case, or the legal standing in this case (Hobby Lobby isn’t forced to provide insurance, there is no employer mandate that they must offer insurance – only that if they do, they have to comply with regulation).
Questions on that?
There are too many assumptions being made here by Rude Pundit about what pro-life activism is about.
Those at abortion clinics are there to counsel women facing crisis pregnancies, not to protest. If a pro-choice activist protests on the sidewalk in front of a church, we’re talking apples and oranges. That is simply not what we do at clinics. To retain a buffer zone, we have had to yell across the street to women already feeling ashamed and vulnerable and beg them to come over to us to receive help, brochures, a free ultrasound, baby and maternity clothes, etc. Rude Pundit simply has it all wrong. Eliminating buffer zones in front of clinics is not the hazard he believes it to be.
The harsh dialogue between pro-choice and pro-life activists in front of a clinic is almost always one-sided — an abortion proponent and defender is incensed because we are there offering an alternative. We can’t change that. And we certainly don’t deserve to be belittled simply because we’re there trying to help.
While it might seem annoying to have to cross a picket line in front of my church, I would do it since this is a free country and I would relish the opportunity to engage one on one with the protesters as long as children are safe. One church here locally actually had a pro-life activist WHO WAS A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH arrested for walking up and down the sidewalk letting people know an abortion clinic was nearby and asking them to get involved in pro-life ministry. She is no longer a member of that church. So I’m guessing it might get confusing. *sarcasm*
“Questions on that?”
Gosh no. You’ve adequately shown numerous times your lack of understanding/blind spots as to why Christian business owners and organizations attempting to live out their faith in meaningful ways cannot accept the HHS Mandate.
Your position is clear.
“Come on, Christians, get out there and impact the world and spread the Good News. And while you’re at it, spread some of this evil too.”
Lrning –
Since you seem to want to press this further…
If Hobby Lobby is so massively afraid of committing sins through their employees, how could they justify participating in 401K funds in which the companies that manufacture those drugs are represented?
How is it a sin to provide insurance for somebody who might then do something sinful, but it isn’t a sin to directly invest in companies that manufacture something that is sinful?
Again – I gave what I thought was a pretty straight forward response – and you seem to want to push this further – so let’s do that.
Ex, I get your point but the overall thing is whether or not the companies can be legally forced to include certain things on their insurance plans, not whether or not Hobby Lobby’s owners are big fat hypocrites (they are).
I think both those things are sinful, apparently they have some justification that if the investments are making them money, it’s not sinful, but if it’s losing them money (paying more for employee insurance) it’s sinful. Stupid. But the overall issue is not whether or not they are hypocritical. Even hypocrites have religious freedom protections, which is the crux of the whole matter.
That’s part of the case – and let me explain more in the next paragraph – but Lrning is indicating because I don’t see a problem with it, I’m essentially being a hypocrite – and I’m having a hard time seeing the two as being related.
Anyway – we know for sure that the government can regulate plans – so to modify your first statement, the overall thing is whether or not companies can be legally forced to included certain things that individuals find themselves to be sinful – and not any individuals within a corporation – the owners or founders.
I have two statements on that:
– They can’t have it both ways. If they want to be an individual, sign away limited liability and be an individual
– They aren’t forced to carry insurance – there is no employer mandate – so they choose to carry insurance, and in doing so, must submit to the regulations (I think there’s about a 45% chance they’ll rule this way tomorrow, a 45% chance they’ll give Hobby Lobby a narrow win, and a 10% of something more radical either way.
“- They aren’t forced to carry insurance – there is no employer mandate – so they choose to carry insurance, and in doing so, must submit to the regulations (I think there’s about a 45% chance they’ll rule this way tomorrow, a 45% chance they’ll give Hobby Lobby a narrow win, and a 10% of something more radical either way.”
I must have missed something (I’m not all up to date on the issues unfortunately, been busy) but I thought the requirement was all businesses with over 50 employees are required to carry insurance or face large penalties? Or is your point that they have the option of carrying no insurance and taking the penalties if they don’t like the government requirements of what the insurance plans have to cover? Sorry, I’m confused can you explain further?
“- They can’t have it both ways. If they want to be an individual, sign away limited liability and be an individual”
So in your view, it would make more legal sense if owners of corporations, if they want individual conscience protections, shouldn’t be able to hide behind the limited liability laws that are only there for corporations, not individuals (aren’t those protections there to keep people from losing their individual assets in case of a business bankruptcy or getting sued? I’m not well-versed in that). So, you’d be okay with Hobby Lobby being allowed to not include contraceptives or abortifacients in their insurance policies if they were willing to accept individual liability for their business, instead of incorporating and receiving liability protection?
Honestly, I don’t think employer provided insurance should be a thing partially because of issues like this, I wanna go universal, so it would all be moot in my perfect world where abortion is illegal and everyone has insurance not tied to their jobs.
They face fines – but the fines aren’t large, and if they believe it is such a moral issue, it would be an option. MSN lays out this case with a link to read further.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/every-way-the-supreme-court-could-rule-hobby-lobby
My case is, businesses are separate entities under the law. Any business takes full advantage of being a business when it is convenient for them – and shouldn’t be allow to flip back and forth between saying they are a business and saying they are an individual. So sure, let Hobby Lobby say they’ve as a corporation accepted Christ, through their owner…but if little Johnny is harmed by negligence at their store, the owner’s assets shouldn’t be protected by limited liability laws. That’s all I’m saying. You can’t have your cake and eat it to.
Amen DLPL –
I mean, why should an employer have a say over somebody’s personal insurance and what they use or don’t use?
I mean, extend it to other benefits – imagine if your employer said you could have a vacation, but you can’t go to Vegas, drink, smoke, or anything else they want to dictate?
Get rid of employer insurance.
I do believe that people should make sacrifices for their morals, sure. Hobby Lobby sure has that option to not provide insurance. It may even be cheaper for them in the long run, I don’t know, but I worry about the employees. Depending on how much they make, they could be screwed out of ANY affordable insurance if Hobby Lobby feels backed into not providing insurance at all. Though I’ve read Hobby Lobby doesn’t exactly pay well so the employees in some states may qualify for Medicaid, or subsidies.
I don’t really see a solution to that besides universal of some sort and getting rid of this ridiculous employer-provided insurance practice.
And I totally get your stance on the hypocrisy of wanting individual AND corporate protections in regards to their business. It really does seem like certain business owners want everything stacked in their favor, fair or just or not, and their employees get the short end every time.
“I mean, extend it to other benefits – imagine if your employer said you could have a vacation, but you can’t go to Vegas, drink, smoke, or anything else they want to dictate?”
No kidding. I’ve brought it up before and no one answers me. I’m a vegetarian, if I started a business and required that none of my employees are allowed to use their wages to buy meat products with the wages I provide them, or else I’d fire them when I find out, would that be okay? What if I refused to cover medical care for heart disease because vegetarians on average have much lower rates of heart disease? I’m pretty sure no one would be on my side on that one, lol.
And people seem to forget, if you have employer-provided insurance provided to you under the current laws, if you turn it down because your employer gets an exemption and is not required to cover whatever, your options to find other insurance are extremely limited. You will not be allowed to get either Medicaid or subsidies if you turn down employer-provided insurance, for one. So basically, the corporation gets all the benefits and the employees get nothing but low wages and no options. Employer-provided insurance is a bad idea imo.
“They face fines – but the fines aren’t large, and if they believe it is such a moral issue, it would be an option. – See more at…[link]”
It’s strange that the article you linked to doesn’t say what the actual penalty is, and instead relies on a hypothetical by Justice Kennedy that *assumes* a small fine. $3,000 per employee is significant. If a company has 1,000 employees, that’s $3,000,000 out the window.
$3000 per employee? I’m not sure but I think that still might be cheaper for some companies. This source shows average costs for health coverage for employer-provided insurance, with breakdowns of employee contribution versus employer costs. I might be reading it wrong but it appears that a lot of the prices in pretty much all states make it cheaper for employers to not provide insurance. http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-premiums.aspx
I’m certainly no accountant or health insurance researcher, lol, so I could have misread. Maybe Del or Ex could chime in, I think Del works in accounting he said and Ex has worked with insurance I believe.
Edit: Of course, I’m not sure of any other penalties an employer might pay for choosing to not provide insurance, could be other fines I’m not aware of. And the numbers in the source I linked are from 2010 at the latest, the costs are higher now I believe.
“He isn’t suggesting that he and others engage in dialogue or counseling with those who believe in religion.” – he did actually – “Let’s go up to them and try to convince them to convert….” – how does what you do qualify as ‘counselling’ anyway? It’s just propaganda and harasssment basically.
“He is proposing they he and others like him engage in harassment.” – you see now, there’s your problem. You don’t see what you do as being harassment yet if others do it to you you think it is.
“And it’s coming. The persecution is coming on.” – the abatement of your christian privilege over others and its unconstitutional permeation of government and society =/= persecution.
“How many hand out atheist literature to those entering a church? I would guess zero. Most atheists haven’t got the guts.” – no, that would be because, unlike you, we believe people should be able to undertake whatever legitimate activities they want. But we will be activist to balk your constant desire to force others to live as you think they should.
““He is proposing they he and others like him engage in harassment.” – you see now, there’s your problem. You don’t see what you do as being harassment yet if others do it to you you think it is.”
Actually you have a point here Reality. An anti-theist group picketing a church, trying to convert members, telling them that what they are doing is harmful, that’s analogous to what pro-life protesters do. As long as they are peaceful and follow the law they should be able to do as they want. I sincerely doubt there are many atheists who would have the inclination to do such a thing, but they have the right.
We pro-lifers can’t demand our constitutional right of protest, religion, free speech, and assembly and then act as others we disagree with are wrong for exercising theirs. Agree or not they should be treated legally the same as any other group. It’s not “persecution” if other citizens dislike us Christians and pro-lifers and our views and decide to protest us (as long as they follow the clearly delineated laws that we all are supposed to abide by when exercising our rights).
Honestly, I think that calling a protest in the US that abides by our laws “persecution” is a slap in the face to religious (or not) minorities, including various Christian denominations, that are beaten, raped, criminalized, and harmed in other countries. Try telling gays in Russia or Uganda about your “persecution”, or Coptic Christians in Egypt. You’ll get some eyebrow raising, lol.
“$3000 per employee? I’m not sure but I think that still might be cheaper for some companies.”
But of course, if a company decides not to offer insurance to employees, it would want to offer a corresponding wage increase to allow its employees to buy insurance on their own. The $3,000 would be in addition to whatever wage increase the company decides it can give and still stay afloat.
To elaborate…
A company can’t say, “OK, this year we will offer you the same package–except, we will no longer health insurance” without effectively making employees leave. A job that once allowed enough income for a family to get by could become a job that doesn’t pay enough to cover basic expenses. Who loses? Not only the company, but its employees.
And so, to compensate for employees who might not be able to afford losing their company-provided plan, a company would decide to offer a corresponding wage increase. What happens after the wage increase and $3,000 fine? The company will need to fire employees in order to stay afloat. The company loses, and so do its employees.
I think that would be great for the pro life movement.
They are always trying to engage people and have conversations about abortion.
To answer the original question…
In a way, it would be great for the faithful to see more people protesting outside Churches. Seeing the protesters, and experiencing their sentiments, could shake both clergy and laypeople out of tepidity and indifference. Protesters force self-questioning: “Why is my Church pro-life? Why does it hold these protested teachings? What am I to do about these protesters, who think I’m their enemy?” They will ask these questions before God in Church. Their clergy will more likely address the issues in sermons. All will think about the issues at home. In discovering the answers, they will come to know Christ more fully.
In fact, on the way to Church may be the best place to be protested because the faithful will be able to immediately bring those concerns before God and His people, and God will hear their concerns and respond.
[…] previous poll question was in response to threats (idle, as it turns out, unsurprisingly) by abortion zealots in the wake of the Supreme […]