"Kansas abortion doctor killed."Just like S. Thomas herself isn't eager to mention the acts of violence committed by the pro-abortion activists. Even though the latter are far more numerous than those isolated incidents from the pro-life side (which are condemned first and foremost - by the pro-lifers themselves). Instead, she prefers to quote a pro-abortion activist Joyce Arthur, who claims that "a lot of people in the anti-choice movement have mental health problems". The bubble zones, she concludes, are needed to protect the abortion providers from the "crazies".
"Buffalo abortion doctor killed by sniper."
"Vancouver abortion doctor hospitalized after shooting."
A quick search on the Internet pulls up dozens of similar headlines from the past decade from across North America. But a recent search of blogs and websites created by anti-abortion crusaders shows these murders and attacks are rarely mentioned. In reading comments posted by anti-choice protesters regarding "bubble zones," that lack of information was glaringly absent.
Many anti-choice bloggers argue protesters' civil rights are being violated because they're no longer allowed to stand directly in front of abortion clinics in B.C. and approach women and staff as they enter. But rarely do they mention the shootings, stabbings and physical and verbal assaults that happened before the law came into effect.
But can a "bubble zone" actually provide such protection? Not really. Banning protests within 50 meters can ensure that none of the protesters gets close enough to be able to smash the windows or to spray-paint graffiti on the walls or to splash red paint on customers' fur coats. But pro-life protesters could hardly be accused of doing any of that. Even a large wooden cross with a sign that reads "You shall not murder", no matter how terrifying it looks to S. Thomas, is not something that a pro-life protester would ever use for poking or window smashing. So, it turns out, the "bubble zone" law protects abortion facilities from a threat that isn't even there.
Sure, their primary concern is - shootings. But how could a "bubble zone" protect one from being shot? One of the headlines quoted by S.Thomas reads "Buffalo abortion doctor killed by sniper" - a sniper can shoot from several hundred meters away, "bubble zone" or no "bubble zone". Then - a ban on protests only applies to clinics. But Tiller was shot in his church - no "bubble zone" law would have protected him there.
Finally - when a man has decided to commit a first degree murder - he doesn't care about violating a minor law such as a ban on protests. The police could be there, keeping the protesters away, but he's not a protester; he's a murderer. He'll come in disguised as a journalist or as a mailman; he'll put on women's clothes to pass as one of the patients or he'll come in wearing a gas company robe and sabotage the pipeline... And he'll do his crime while the police is busy chasing away peaceful protesters with their rosaries and plastic fetus dolls.
So what the "bubble zone" laws are for? To keep the sidewalk counselors away. "The protesters can still do their thing, they just have to do it across the street." - S. Thomas suggests in her article. Yes, a sign with a picture of an unborn baby could still be visible from across the street, so there's still a chance that a woman who enters the abortion facilities could see what her baby looks like. But no information brochures, no eye contact, let alone - answering questions...
And that's the way pro-aborts want it to be. Because of the legal vacuum on the abortion issue, there aren't many regulations and safety rules with which abortion providers must comply. It takes more paperwork, more informed consent and malpractice waiver forms to remove a wart than to have an unborn baby sucked out of the womb and ripped to pieces during the process. Informed consent? What informed consent? She came here at her own will, didn't she?
Nobody assesses her for risk factors for poor psychological adjustment and informs her if she is at high risk for being traumatized by the abortion experience. The risk factors are well known; but nobody screens for them and nobody informs the woman of what risk factors she has and what the possible negative outcomes may be.That's how abortion business works in North America. That's the status-quo which the pro-aborts want to keep. Sidewalk counselors, that provide women with information, so they could make a truly informed decision - that's the last thing abortion providers need. They don't want to lose their business. So they need a "bubble zone" law to keep anyone who doesn't agree with them at least 50 meters away.
Nobody informs her of the risk that she might not be able to carry a future pregnancy to term -- despite decades of evidence linking abortion to future pregnancy complications. Instead, she's assured repeatedly that she can have a baby later, when the time is right.