AIBU to think it should be illegal for anti abortion groups to spread propaganda under the guise of electioneering?

[BaileysforBreakfast]

Along with 21 other constituencies, we have a candidate standing as an 'Independent'. She is standing on behalf of 'Vote Life'. Vote Life's webpage clearly states it is "not a political party but a collective banner under which independent candidates can stand. We work with them to ensure they maximise the educational opportunities of the electoral system in advocating for pro-life laws and policy." This seems like a very cynical way to spread propaganda. They have no manifesto as yet (surprise!), but seem to be using this as an opportunity to distribute their graphic leaflets to households in 22 constituencies. AIBU to think the electoral system should not be so easily exploited to allow non-political parties to disseminate anti abortion literature and that only genuine political parties with published manifestos should be allowed to stand? Even the Monster Raving Loony Party has a manifesto and policy proposals.
Please be aware if you live in one of the constituencies, as this very graphic leaflet may be landing on your doorsteps soon. Info about where candidates are standing are on their website.

If you think she's breaching electoral rules (eg through funding or her published materials) then you can report her https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/

Otherwise she has every right to stand for election on a single issue. Don't vote for her if you don't agree.

A late term abortion usually involves giving birth and is often called compassionate induction or TFMR.

Most women who want to terminate their pregnancy do so before 12w.

Those who are terminating post 12 weeks, and even more so those terminating after 16-20+w, are doing so because their baby is very ill.

Healthy babies in the womb don't have any kind of sentient consciousness before about 26w.

Their brains haven't developed enough to allow it.

Are you serious? You haven’t heard of anti-abortion fanatics harassing people going into family planning clinics? Their propaganda actively harms people.

Thankfully that will soon be banned in Scotland.

I've heard people say that women are harassed outside clinics but I've never seen videos of such "harassment" first hand. I have heard many stories of women who were offered absolutely no support to keep their baby even when they desperately wanted to, and those who were being manipulated by abusive partners into abortion, and representatives from pro-life organisations approaching them outside clinics to tell them about crisis pregnancy centres where they can get help if they change their mind. I've heard many, many women say this is the first time they felt empowered and supported to keep their baby, and not just told about other options but actually offered support to make the decision they want. I've also seen videos of a lone woman standing near (but beyond the perimeters of) an abortion clinic, with no placards or uniform, not speaking to or approaching anyone, but being arrested because she admitted she admitted to police she was "praying in her head".

The censorship zones are not going to help anyone.

You misunderstood my point. I was saying, if you believe the foetus is not a person, but non-sentient pregnancy tissue, and that there is nothing morally reprehensible about abortion, you shouldn't in the same breath claim that videos of abortion are shocking and that they shouldn't be available to watch online.

(I'm talking about the UK btw)

If women are actually being physically harassed, shouted at or blocked from entering a clinic, that's bad. But I'm pretty sure that's already illegal, isn't it?

Offering information on the other hand should never be censored.

They're going to help woman accessing health care and the staff giving them health care.

I am 100% pro-choice

and I am also 100% pro campaigning by pro-lifers (or pro-choicers).

As long as their campaign is carried out legally then it would be completely undemocratic to silence them.

Note: that if they back or endorse any candidate and spend money then this has to be registered with the electoral commission by both this campaign and the candidates. The candidates will also have to declare any financial support on their election expenses.

I can believe a foetus is a person (but not one with a sentiment consciousness). I also don't believe there is anything morally reprehensible about TOP. But it doesn't mean I want to watch a video of a D&C being performed.

It's puzzling because it looks nothing like a vagina entrance, and everything like a cervix, by her thighs and hair. Are you saying they pull the womb/cervix down to the vaginal opening, because they don't.

I suggest you look those videos up, they’re very distressing.

If you've "never seen videos of such harrassment..." you are not looking hard enough. There are literally dozens online.
In an earlier post, you claimed "The pro-choice/pro-abortion lobby in the UK is incredibly powerful - if a pro-life organisation was using fake videos, they would come down on this like a tonne of bricks." If it's so powerful, how has it taken so many years to legislate for exclusion zones (or what you call 'censorship zones') around clinics and why is there still a need for volunteer escorts to help women accessing legal healthcare while running the gamut of people "praying" for them?
Your defence of these people leads me to infer that you are probably one of the people who enjoys getting in the faces of vulnerable women and, if you're not, that you support their actions.
Just to address a couple of things in your many other posts: "Well as they're independent candidates, I'm guessing they all do their own fundraising." Are you actually joking?
"The fact is, many people do find the images disturbing, because they actually didn't know fully what an abortion involves." This is offensive and misogynistic. You are suggesting here that women are too dim to realise what is happening to their bodies and are incapable of making their own choices.
I notice, too, in another post that you've resorted to calling pro-choice "pro abortion", a phrase straight out of the forced-birthers' script.

I received a response from Vote Life re. Whether the footage of the abortion on their website was fake. They said the following.

"The video on our website is genuine footage of abortion procedures and was taken lawfully at abortion clinics. The imagery is used by a separate organisation known as CBR UK who verified its authenticity. You can find out more about this on CBR's webpage (https://www.cbruk.org/imagesource) where they show signed affidavits from the abortionist and the photographer."

If you've "never seen videos of such harrassment..." you are not looking hard enough. There are literally dozens online.
I've seen this happening in America but not much in the UK. I believe harassment/obstructing people/intimidating people has long been illegal in the UK, so exclusion zones wouldn't serve any additional purpose except to prevent people who are simply offering information and support.

In an earlier post, you claimed "The pro-choice/pro-abortion lobby in the UK is incredibly powerful - if a pro-life organisation was using fake videos, they would come down on this like a tonne of bricks." If it's so powerful, how has it taken so many years to legislate for exclusion zones (or what you call 'censorship zones') around clinics and why is there still a need for volunteer escorts to help women accessing legal healthcare while running the gamut of people "praying" for them? As I've already stated, the exclusion zones would serve no purpose that the law doesn't already serve. Harassment and intimidation are already covered under the law.

Your defence of these people leads me to infer that you are probably one of the people who enjoys getting in the faces of vulnerable women and, if you're not, that you support their actions. I've never knowingly stood any where near an abortion clinic. I do support their right to offer alternative information and support to women enter clinics because I've heard many, many stories where such support was welcomed, and where the state service provider did not offer any real support for those wishing to keep their baby in difficult circumstances.

Just to address a couple of things in your many other posts: "Well as they're independent candidates, I'm guessing they all do their own fundraising." Are you actually joking? What do you mean?? If these candidates didn't do their own fundraising, then Vote Life would have to be classed as a political party, which it isn't.

"The fact is, many people do find the images disturbing, because they actually didn't know fully what an abortion involves." This is offensive and misogynistic. You are suggesting here that women are too dim to realise what is happening to their bodies and are incapable of making their own choices.
I notice, too, in another post that you've resorted to calling pro-choice "pro abortion", a phrase straight out of the forced-birthers' script. I'm not suggesting anything. I know for a fact that many members of the public don't actually know what an abortion involves. I know this from both conversations and from seeing hundreds of videos of intelligent people being shown footage of abortion, and stating they were shocked and disturbed because they had no idea that's what it actually involved.

I spent some time on the CBR website mentioned here (the Centre for Bioethical Reform, a single issue extremist pressure group campaigning against all abortion, at all times, for all women in all circumstances from a Christian standpoint). Highly, highly selective use of facts as you'd expect. Tbh I'd vomit if I viewed footage of a vasectomy so I'm not going to watch the clips. And yes I agree, I dont think election materials should be used to insert this stuff into everybody's homes.

I think they have a right to express their views by standing for election.. But I don't agree with canvassing outside abortion clinics. That's harassment.

The point was that CBR show signed affidavits from the abortionist and the photographer. CBR themselves are a pro-life/anti-abortion organisation, that's no secret.

Any link to the consent of the woman or women involved in having this procedure filmed?

Don't undersell the CBR, they are campaigning against hormonal contraception as well because they regard it as abortifacient.

I was responding specifically to people falsely claiming the footage of the abortion was fake.

I can only presume the photographer and the abortionist obtained consent but if you want proof of this, you'd have to contact CBR. Their website states: "We are sometimes asked how and from what sources we have compiled our huge library (perhaps the largest in the world) of aborted baby photos and video. Understandably, the terms of our acquisition agreements prohibit the disclosure of that information. If we must divulge this information pursuant to the lawsuits we are preparing, we will do so “in camera,” which means in a judge’s chambers, off the record, so the information will be sealed and never made public. It doesn't take much analytical ability to guess why. We are prepared, however, to say that we reject civil disobedience on tactical grounds (and violence on moral grounds) so we use only lawful means to acquire imagery."

They give more information here: www.cbruk.org/imagesource