Workers vs. ProtestersOn January 15, 2014, the United States Supreme Court considered the case of the anti-abortion protester and the Massachusetts law. The court had considered abolishing the buffer zone around abortion clinics because it violates the First Amendment for protesters. While the court is still debating the buffer zone law, many authors have raised their voices on these issues. Emily Bazelon and Amanda Marcotte have different views on buffer zones for anti-abortion protesters. Amanda Marcotte's article focuses on the perspective of abortion clinic workers while Emily Bazelon's article focuses on the perspective of anti-abortion protesters. However, Amanda Marcotte's article has a stronger argument because her article contains more valid reasons for maintaining the buffer zone. Amanda Marcotte's article "Abortion Clinic Workers Explain Why the Supreme Court Should Uphold the Buffer Zone" is primarily about clinic workers and why the court should respect the buffer zone. His article begins with the background of the story, then the author talks about the concerns of abortion clinic workers. As the title of her article suggests, its main purpose is to present three clinic workers' experiences with anti-abortion protesters. Their names are Michelle Kinsey Burns, Lori Gregory Garrott and Megan. The personal experiences of the clinic staff are what make Marcotte's argument valid for upholding the buffer zone law. Michelle Kinsey Burns, Lori Gregory Garrott, and Megan, a counselor, all have bad experiences with anti-abortion protesters in the Buffer Zone. According to the article, these clinics face hostile protesters every day when they come to work. Although hostile protesters have never...... middle of paper...... in Massachusetts. That the buffer zone law is a violation of the First Amendment and can also be seen as being opposed only to those who do not accept abortion. As mentioned previously in Bazelon's article, for the Supreme Court, the buffer zone can be considered a violation of the First Amendment based on the law and nothing else. That would mean the pending Supreme Court case could persuade justices to strike down the buffer zone law, or to tone down the effect of the current law to accommodate the needs of protesters. Even in Marcotte's article, she also confirms that the Supreme Court could also strike down the law. With all the reasons given in Marcotte's article, his article has a stronger argument than Bazelon's. However, if this argument is based in law, then the reasons listed in Bazelon's article may convince judges otherwise..