The story behind the protest at the Supreme Court that aired on Tuesday

Abortion people saving lives … stopped people from killing babies … And they’re protecting our privacy … and quality of life … and — and … and … and …

Abortion people saving lives is not half of the lawsuit.

It’s the second of two mega cases, that aired out before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, with powerful women and appealing personal stories at the heart of the passions surrounding the abortion debate.

Tibetan protester Leslie Cheren entered the Supreme Court with protesters who put leaflets around her necks and branded her with bright streamers as cameras clicked and people shouted, “Dr. Babette!” during the battle over legal abortion rights. Her heart was beating furiously, she said, with her blood pressure rising as she tried to steady herself. “It is long term. I’m trying to recover,” she said.

Protesters on Tuesday dramatized their views on abortion with a wide range of spectacles and flamboyant displays that were a daily part of the five-month standoff at the nation’s highest court.

“That’s why I’m on this trip,” Cheren said, reading from the packet she’d brought with her. “It’s about families that want to have children.”

The contrasting message has sharpened as the court has pondered its course as thousands of abortion opponents have camped outside the court since October in the ultimate effort to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

In Nebraska v. Planned Parenthood, plaintiff Jennifer Matthews made her case for abortion rights: “What happens when women come out here to have an abortion? They go to the closest doctor and for $50 they can get an abortion.

“What happens when the doctor has a terrible tragedy, a train wreck on the way to the clinic?

“And then you’ve got an ambulance and a coroner to pick up the bodies of the babies they killed.”

Late Tuesday, the court ruled that the women had a right to be free from being subjected to “shouting and screaming,” along with confrontational picketing.

But the justices saved the most aggressive tactics for a later time, and left in place a ruling that allows a different kind of emotional appeals on a temporary basis.

Both groups were granted permission to film and videotape anyone visiting their tents, in effect using the same rules now allowed for protesters at funerals and events attended by celebrities. And they also can be there as long as the people they are harassing don’t interfere.

Groups and individual protesters, however, are not allowed to make a display “over the top of what an ordinary observer would consider normal speech,” such as chanting, pounding on furniture or holding sign that could be used for intimidation or “disparaging personal characteristics,” such as “homosexual” or “Arab.”

©2019 The New York Times

Visit The New York Times at

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Leave a Comment