Reply #71: I see no evidence that he is anti choice.

[endarkenment]

"U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks ruled that the city didn't prove the existence of problems that it said the law addressed: restricted patient access and a threat to public safety. Even if it had, the law is too strict, he ruled.

"Freedom of speech is rarely an issue when everyone agrees," Middlebrooks wrote. "Perhaps more than at any other place and any other time, in cases such as this, speech guaranteed by the First Amendment must be protected."

Middlebrooks ruled that the city probably would lose its case at trial, so the law cannot remain in effect until a trial takes place.

A related law prohibiting "unnecessary noise" and "amplified sound" within 100 feet of such facilities can be enforced, although Middlebrooks wrote that he found that ordinance flawed.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/local_news/epaper/2006/04/18/s1a_buffer_0418.html

If he was just some fundaloon with an axe to grind why didn't he strike down enforcement of the noise law too?

By the way the same article goes on to point out that these massive harrassing disruptive verbal violence inflicting protests that should not be considered speech generally consisted of a grand total of three women.