I have not misunderstood you continually stating that the purpose of the repressive legislation is to stop intimidation – just some of your cavilling against people standing silently in a public street: -

“Only those feeling intimidated can possibly know whether anyone doing anything is responsible for it. That the per-son standing silently doesn’t believe it intimidates is irrelevant.”
“Protecting the vulnerable from intimidation is never ridiculous. Thinking that those seeking help in an abortion clinic aren’t vulnerable to intimidation is ridiculous.”
“It has nothing to do with this issue though, where the concerns are obvious, as is the intimidation.”
“A user might well think that an innocent bystander is intimidating”

Of course discussion of abortion itself has a place in this thread. The fact that there are legally provided clinics for abortions does not make it less grubby and morally questionable, in the same way that a legal dispensary for drug addicts does not make drug taking less reprehensible. By the way, some left-wing ‘ethicists’, such as Dr. Peter Singer, argue that foetuses are neither rational nor self-aware and as a result, the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. He also has said that young children have no automatic right to life and that it could be wholly ethical to terminate the life of a living, dependent child if it were disabled or even if its existence jeopardised the life chances of the mother. Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood, “rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness" and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living". (He has also argued that there is no moral reason why people should not have "mutually satisfying" sex with their pets.)

I have not misunderstood you continually stating that the purpose of the repressive legislation is to stop intimidation – just some of your cavilling against people standing silently in a public street: -

“Only those feeling intimidated can possibly know whether anyone doing anything is responsible for it. That the person standing silently doesn’t believe it intimidates is irrelevant.”
“Protecting the vulnerable from intimidation is never ridiculous. Thinking that those seeking help in an abortion clinic aren’t vulnerable to intimidation is ridiculous.”
“It has nothing to do with this issue though, where the concerns are obvious, as is the intimidation.”
“A user might well think that an innocent bystander is intimidating”

Of course discussion of abortion itself has a place in this thread. The fact that there are legally provided clinics for abortions does not make it less grubby and morally questionable, in the same way that a legal dispensary for drug addicts does not make drug taking less reprehensible. By the way, some left-wing ‘ethicists’, such as Dr. Peter Singer, argue that foetuses are neither rational nor self-aware and as a result, the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. He also has said that young children have no automatic right to life and that it could be wholly ethical to terminate the life of a living, dependent child if it were disabled or even if its existence jeopardised the life chances of the mother. Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood, “rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness" and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living". (He has also argued that there is no moral reason why people should not have "mutually satisfying" sex with their pets.)

Edited by georgenorman (28 Dec 2022 10.15am)

As you have received an accurate and succinct reply to this there is not a lot to add. You seem determined to either divert the discussion or avoid the point.

It still hasn't been explained what intimidation was involved.

another christian arrested for praying in the street

[Link]

OK, slowly, and hopefully for the last time. The reason these restrictions are in place is because several christian fundamentalist groups, one of which this particular woman is a member of, have been running a campaign where they regularly turn up in large numbers to protest on the doorsteps of facilities offering abortion services. These protests have included a whole range of behaviours such as silent praying, waving placards with pictures of bloody foetuses, screaming abuse and other forms of intimidation.
Given that the people who work there and the people who need these services would rather not run this gauntlet every day they have asked that the protests be moved from directly in front of their premises. As these fundamentalists cannot be trusted to behave themselves some local authorities have introduced measures whereby all of their methods of protest are banned from the immediate vicinity of the clinics.
Knowing all of this, and determined to be a martyr for the cause, this woman deliberately broke the law for the fourth time. It doesn't really matter what she was doing, she's a known activist and she knew all she had to do was stand there and she'd get her name in the papers.