RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Protestors Face Parking Problem

By Joe Veix, RH Reality Check

June 12, 2009 - 12:39pm

Joe Veix's picture

Despite the considerably more important things anti-abortion activists should worry about, here's a humorous curiosity: In Bakersfield, California, new parking
restrictions in front of a family planning clinic have been inexplicably
protested
by local residents, who fear the new restrictions will make it more
difficult to pray outside of the clinic. A petition with just under 800 signatures
was submitted to the Bakersfield City Council on Wednesday by Tim Palmquist of
Lifesavers Ministries (of no relation to the ring-shaped mints). The petition says:

"We need to park in this area for more than 30 minutes
at a time when we exercise our First Amendment rights by participating in activities
such as prayer vigils."

City Attorney Ginny Gennaro responded, befuddled:

"We're not inhibiting anyone's freedom of expression. They
can continue to walk down the sidewalk. As long as I've been city attorney for
the last six years, I haven't seen any protests over parking restrictions of
this nature."

When workers arrived to install signs in front of the
clinic, Palmquist - who leases a house across the street from the clinic -
voiced his opposition to the new signs, saying that there wasn't enough
long-term parking.

One member of Palmquist's group said, "Our hope is that it
will stay as it was before. The street belongs to the city and to the people of
the city." Of course, this disregards the purpose of short term parking.
While long term parking typically favors residents who live on the block,
allowing them to leave their cars for extended periods of time, short term
parking allows a higher number of people to park in a single spot per hour,
benefitting more people in the city.

The article ends with a threatening quote from Palmquist: "We
will pursue this as far as we have to pursue it. Believe me, this isn't going
to go away easily." That's a lot of effort for a few parking spots.

The lingering and unanswered question is, if the parking
restrictions disrupt Palmquist's protest group, wouldn't it similarly disrupt regular
visitors to the clinic? If so, why are they protesting the new restrictions?


. . . . .
3 comments
Please login or register to post comments...

A little levity is so good for the spirit, Joe.

Let's hope elected Bakersfield officials aren't harassed and threatened over this insignificant matter and that the anti-choicers aren't given any "special rights" more than any other group of citizens.

Regarding your last point that the 30-minute restriction applying to clinic visitors, it can be refuted quite easily. Just dare to go into the dark recesses of the anti-choice mind. Let's see what could possible be hatched there? Oh, of course, the anti-choicer would believe that thirty minutes is all the time that would be needed for female visitors to fiendishly hatch a plan to become pregnant and wait until their eighth month of pregnancies to joyously terminate. Bwwwaaahhhaaa! It must be a conspiracy!

I can't claim to get into their heads, and if I could, I wouldn't want to go there. Yet if that kind of thinking on the part of anti-choicers weren't so close to being possible, it would be funny! But I'm not laughing.

Submitted by AnonyMs. on June 12, 2009 - 5:23pm.

Given the long history of violence, intimidation and vandalism against these clinics, it might behoove local governments to set up "free speech areas" like the ones that are now common at political conventions: hundreds of yards away from the event, enclosed by a fence, surrounded by law enforcement.

Submitted by cycles on June 12, 2009 - 5:54pm.

Also, this kvetching about taking away street parking reminds me of the struggles that bicycle coalitions have to go through in order to get new bike lanes built. On busy streets, sometimes the only way to add a bike lane is to take away the line of street parking. Oh my god, the vitriol that results. How dare you take away parking? We have to gently remind people that the purpose of streets is transportation, not vehicle storage.

I'd say the same thing to these protesters. Nobody has a fundamental right to park on the street.

Submitted by cycles on June 12, 2009 - 5:58pm.