did I ever tell you the story about me and Johnny Cash...the night we tore up Ventura? well, maybe later...
so I see some blonde chick modeling at the bus stop on a motorcycle....I wonder how she'd feel if I went over there and started to harass her because I thought it was my right as a man...
well, I 'd be arrested.....
and that other old blonde chick-fil-a Wendy...well I guess my praise for the News-Press reporting was without merit because Wendy is still firing people, although she's keeping the boozers...but the next to go is the chick editor of SCENE, so I've heard..and Wendy's main ass-kisser Scott Steeplton is back on page one mixing opinions up with stories regarding the UCSB porn professor |
| bad vibes, Wendy? |
and if I were protesting abortion I might think twice about showing bloody images to pregnant women for I may induce a miscarriage, God's form of abortion....
it seems the City of Santa Barbara was sued in 1995 about the so-called Bubble Ordinance relating to Planned Parenthood...the legal is pretty convoluted but the lawsuit by two gals whom I've never even heard of, targeted city council members like disgusting old lesbian Harriet Miller and Elenore Langer and another pro-abortion lady, the Mayor at the time....I can't remember her name...but she escorted baby-killers into Parenthood to shield them from the anti-abortion folks...
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19952262883FSupp1379_12099.xml/EDWARDS%20v.%20CITY%20OF%20SANTA%20BARBARA
I. BACKGROUND
In May of 1993, the City Council of defendant City of Santa Barbara ("the City") adopted an ordinance limiting protest activity outside medical clinics and places of worship ("the Ordinance"). The Ordinance was passed in the wake of complaints by individuals and organizations about the conduct of anti-abortion protestors. For instance, a representative of a local Planned Parenthood clinic complained that protestors were disrupting traffic, impeding access to the clinic, and confronting patients and staff members in a harassing fashion. See, e.g., Exhibits 103, 104 to Defendants' Opposition to Preliminary Injunction (letters to City Council members from Executive Director of Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, detailing incidents and complaints and requesting legislative response). There were also complaints that protestors had confronted abortion providers at their churches.
A. The Ordinance
The Ordinance has two main provisions.1 Section 9.99.030 ("the Driveway Provision") prohibits all "demonstration activity" on or within eight feet of the driveway of a health care facility or place of worship.2 "Demonstration activity" is defined to include "all expressive or symbolic content, whether active or passive...." Ordinance at 9.99.010(D). Section 9.99.020 ("the Bubble Zone Provision")3 forbids a person from "impeding" or "hampering" access to a health care facility or place of worship by failing to withdraw to eight feet away from a person when the person so requests. This provision is effective in the "access area", which is the area within 100 feet of a health facility or place of worship. Ordinance at 9.99.010(A). Obviously, both provisions encompass activity on public sidewalks.
Plaintiffs suggest that they have proved viewpoint animus by showing that certain members of the Santa Barbara City Council were affiliated with pro-choice groups. The Ordinance was requested by the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, who wrote a letter to City Council members Harriet Miller and Eleanor Langer. See Plaintiffs' Exhibits Nos. 918-959. Langer was a member of the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood when the Ordinance was enacted. Plaintiff's Exhibit Nos. 1242. Council member Miller "has attended Planned Parenthood meetings." Mayor Sheila Lodge, who is on the Council, is also a member of Planned Parenthood and serves as a volunteer "escort." Rollings Deposition at P51, L18. Plaintiffs conclude that these affiliations prove viewpoint discrimination. Plaintiffs' Opposition to Summary Judgment at 23. They have proved no such thing. Even though such membership permits an inference that these individuals may disagree with the anti-abortion viewpoint, plaintiffs have utterly failed to connect that disagreement to the enactment of this Ordinance. As discussed above, plaintiffs' evidence shows only that the Council members wanted to protect free access to clinics and churches.
Plaintiffs have not shown that the Ordinance was motivated by disagreement with the anti-abortion viewpoint; in fact, their evidence shows that it was justified by reference to effects, not content. Therefore, their argument about legislative intent must fail....
back then, a guy from Poland would chain himself to Planned Parenthood cars, get arrested, get out, then come to work the next day.....he'd hand out bibles to his fellow workers.... I worked with him and he was a great guy but most assuredly on a mission....to get in the face of Planned Parenthood..I wonder what ever happened to Richard?
maybe he joined up with Westboro Baptist Church!!
No comments:
Post a Comment