Workers vs. ProtestersOn January 15, 2014, the United States Supreme Court heard 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 the issue. Emily Bazelon and Amanda Marcotte have different opinions 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 protestors. However, Amanda Marcotte's article has a stronger argument because her article contains stronger reasons to support the buffer zone. Amanda Marcotte's article "Abortion Clinic Workers on Why the Supreme Court Should Uphold the Buffer Zone" is primarily about clinic workers and their reason why the court should uphold the buffer zone. Her article begins with the context of the story and then the author moves on to talk about the concerns of the abortion clinic workers. As the title of her article suggests, her main goal is to show 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 workers are what make Marcotte's argument for supporting the buffer zone law valid. Michelle Kinsey Burns, Lori Gregory Garrott, and Megan, a counselor named, all have bad experiences with anti-abortion protesters in the buffer zone. According to the article, these clinics faced hostile protesters every day when they came to work. Even though 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 only opposing those who do not accept abortion. As mentioned earlier in Bazelon's article, for the Supreme Court the buffer zone can be viewed as a violation of the First Amendment based on law and nothing else. This would mean that the case that played out before the Supreme Court could convince the judges to abolish the buffer zone law, or lessen the effect of the current law to meet the needs of the protesters. Also in the article Marcotte confirms that the Supreme Court could also abolish 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.