I remember a time in the not so distant past when liberals were up in arms about free speech zones. Of course, I guess they’re okay, so long as you call them “buffer zones” and only apply them to conservatives.

Proponents of the expansion say the current law allows disruptive and potentially dangerous protesters to get too close to those entering clinics.

Sort of like allowing “disruptive and potentially dangerous protestors to get too close to” the leader of the free world? Ironic that they’re making the very same argument in this case that they opposed before. The only difference being the group potentially impacted in this case…

‘’What’s being done to the people who are trying to access and leave these clinics is unpardonable,” state Senator Susan C. Fargo, a Lincoln Democrat and cosponsor of the bill, said yesterday at a State House press conference.

Only half of those entering actually get to leave. What’s being done to the other half of the people entering these clinics is unpardonable.

‘’My inclination is that I would like to protect those people who are going into the clinics, so that they have their opportunity to get that service that they have a right to under Massachusetts law and under the laws of the Supreme Court,” [Salvatore F. DiMasi, an abortion-rights proponent] said.

What he means is that he “would like to protect” only half of “those people who are going into the clinics”. But I’m sure it was just an honest mistake in wording.