Workers vs. Protesters

Workers vs. Protesters
On January 15, 2014 the US Supreme Court took on the case of the abortion protester and the Massachusetts law. The court had considered abolishing the buffer zone around abortion clinics because it violates the first amendment for the protesters. As the court still debating over the buffer zone law, many authors have raised their voices on the issues. Emily Bazelon and Amanda Marcotte have different views on the buffer zones for abortion protesters. Amanda Marcotte’s article is focused on the point of view from the abortion clinic workers while Emily Bazelon’s article focusing on the point of view of the abortion protesters. However, Amanda Marcotte’s article has a stronger argument because her article contains more valid reasons to uphold the buffer zone.
Amanda Marcotte’s article “Abortion Clinic Workers on Why the Supreme Court Should Uphold Buffer Zone” is mainly about clinic workers and their reason why the court should uphold the buffer zone. Her article starts off with the background of the story and then the author moves on to talk about the abortion clinic workers' concerns. Like the title of her article suggests, her main point is to showcase the three clinic workers experience with the anti-abortion protesters. Their names are Michelle Kinsey Burns, Lori Gregory Garrott, and Megan. The clinic workers’ personal experiences are what makes Marcotte’s argument valid to uphold the buffer zone law.
Michelle Kinsey Burns, Lori Gregory Garrott, and a counselor's name Megan all have bad experiences with the anti-abortion protesters in the buffer zone. According to the article, these clinic works have faced hostile protesters each day when they come to work. Even though, the hostile protesters have never us...

... middle of paper ...

... in Massachusetts. That the buffer zone law is a violation of the first Amendment, and can also be seen as it only opposes those who do not accept abortion.
As it mentions before in the Bazelon’s article, to the Supreme Court the buffer zone can be seen as a violation of the First Amendment based on the law and nothing else. This would mean that the case that current taken place at the Supreme Court might persuade the judges to abolish the buffer zone law, or lessen the effect of the current law to fit the need of the protesters. Even in Marcotte’s article, she is also confirming that the Supreme Court might abolish the law as well. With all the reasons given in Marcotte’s article, her article has a stronger argument than the Bazelon’s article. However, if this argument is based on the law, then reasons listed in Bazelon’s article can convince the judges otherwise.