Should MN support a BPAS call for non-protest 'buffer zones' outside abortion clinics? Tell MNHQ what you think

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello all

We've been contacted by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, who want to know whether Mumsnet can support a call they're going to make for buffer zones around abortion clinics - and as ever we'd like to run it past MNers to see what you think.

Here's what BPAS say:

'Over recent years there has been an escalation in anti-abortion activity outside clinics in the UK. Women attending pregnancy advice and abortion centres are now regularly exposed to groups of anti-abortion activists standing directly outside. Many of these protesters bear large banners of dismembered foetuses, distribute leaflets containing misleading information about abortion, and follow and question women as they enter or leave the centres. Often, these people carry cameras strapped to their chests or positioned on a tripod. Women report feeling intimidated and distressed by this activity as they try to access a lawful healthcare service in confidence. Pregnant staff at clinics have on occasion needed escorting from the building by the police. Recently, NHS staff on premises where a clinic is located have felt so intimidated by the presence outside they have asked for the abortion service to be withdrawn. The closure of a service as a result of anti-abortion activity would be unprecedented.'

'We believe enough is enough.'

'One in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime. We are a society which values freedom of speech, but also one where the vast majority of us support a woman’s access to abortion services. The right to protest needs to be balanced with the right of pregnant women to obtain advice and treatment in confidence and free from intimidation. For those who wish to campaign to restrict women’s reproductive choices, there are plenty of opportunities and locations in which to do so. The space immediately outside a clinic need not and should not not be one of them.'

'Women should feel confident that they can approach centres for advice and services without fear of intimidation, or anxious that their identity will be compromised by protesters filming outside. Establishing access zones free from anti-abortion activists around clinics would provide the reassurance and security women need. We urge all political parties to act to protect women as they make their own personal decision about their pregnancy. Women deserve nothing less.'

We know MNers tend to feel fairly strongly about abortion and that there are views on both sides of this debate - so do please let us know what you think.

Thanks

MNHQ

Totally support this.

If people have a problem with the availability of abortion they should protest to the government about the law, rather than intimidating patients and staff at clinics. Having a buffer zone isn't going to stop legitimate protest, and it will help protect vulnerable women.

I would be really happy to see MN back this.

Please MNHQ, add your weight to this,

Hello

Thanks for your thoughts on this: it's clear that the great majority of posters think we should get behind this one, so we will do.

We asked BPAS about some of your questions around legal precedents, rights to protest and so on, and here is their response:

'We are thrilled with the response from MNers but quite understand some of the reservations. We’ve been there ourselves! The fact is that because this activity is quite unusual there is no legislation in place that covers the scope of it and allows the police to take action that will address the problem. So for example attempts to use the Public Order Act have failed because the activity does not appear to fit the criteria of the legislation. There is no legislation that stops activists filming people using healthcare services with or without their knowledge, even if it might be an offence to publish those images without consent – but that is of little reassurance to women who have to walk past cameras.'

'Harassment legislation requires making complaints to the police about individual events. Women considering abortion quite naturally do not want to do this and staff don’t feel comfortable about making themselves a target by doing so. The judge in the recent Northern Ireland anti-abortion harassment case described the case as 'no-holds barred' and run 'in a vicious and malicious fashion' – we cannot and would not expect staff to make themselves targets of activists with very extreme views (any more than they already are).'

'BPAS has no desire to restrict freedom of speech or the right to protest and has resisted calling for legislation to tackle this problem for several years. We have tried a number of routes to stop this activity – including contacting the churches which support these people and asking them to consider the impact it has on women - but all to no avail. We regularly debate people opposed to what we do, and have no desire to shut debate down – but we feel strongly that women coming for pregnancy advice and abortion care aren't coming to have a debate but to access a private medical service, and should be left alone.'

'The type of legislation we are proposing would apply very specifically to abortion clinics and pregnancy advisory bureaux. The Department of Health holds a list of these facilities. As with animal rights extremism legislation, this would be tightly drafted to deal with the behaviour of activists in these settings. This will ensure that it cannot be used to stop workers protesting outside a workplace or to curtail the right to protest in general. The point about this pushing the groups back but not entirely removing them is well made – buffer or 'access' zones will not solve the problem outright. But they would make it easier to provide a safe access route for women and staff and include provisions like stopping activists approaching women unsolicited and filming people immediately outside clinics.'

'We are very clear that if the result of this campaign is guidance that enables and empowers the police to use existing legislation then that would be welcome, but at present supportive police officers up and down the country tell us they do not have the powers to do solve this problem. They tend to advise civil injunctions, which is what Harrods has used successfully against fur protesters, but not only is this very expensive (not a problem if you are Harrods), it would have to be done on an individual basis from scratch for each clinic. We would do this if we thought it provided a proper solution. And we believe there is principle at stake: women should be able to access services in confidence and free from intimidation.'

'The police indicate that this type of domestic activism is most similar to animal-rights extremism (though at present fortunately without the threat of violence). Specific clauses were included in the Serious Organised Crime Act and Police Act 2005 in an attempt to regulate activity outside laboratories. In terms of what abortion related legislation might look like, this example from British Columbia provides a useful model (please see attached picture).'

'We hope this answers questions, and we're extremely happy to take more.'

Very useful clarification, particularly regarding enforcement of existing legislation, and the already-defined list of affected premises.

My reservations are swept aside and I am happy for MN to support this in my name.

thank you.

out of interest you say you have contacted individual churches and had no success - i wonder if heads of churches (where they are, for example, members of the church of england) have given any statements about this kind of harassment?

i'm well aware though obviously that there are vast numbers of churches who do not affilate with any wider membership or authority and are essentially laws unto themselves so wouldn't be influenced but at least if heads of prominent denominations made statements it would be something.

these people are acting under the banner of christianity and hardly doing a good PR job and could be seen as actively damaging the reputation of the church and potentially leading to a re-examination of the privileges and exceptions offered to religious organisations in our legal system. it may be in their own interest to make a statement against behaviours that harass and impose on the rights of individuals accessing legal services in the name of christianity.

I had no idea there was so little legal protection from harassment for women using clinics. They're filmed??

So awful

Another thoughtful post from honeybadger.

A carefully worded response from SPUC below to concerns raised by Marie Stopes saying that they have 'no evidence of intimidation of doctors.'

www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/27/abortion-clinic-protest-doctors-safety

It's doesn't sound like a statement criticising or asking for a stop to the abuse and harrassment of women outside clinics in its name, does it?

pft. i'm really beginning to think it is time to stop giving privileges and exemptions to religion. there is too much abuse of being allowed to be exempt from equality law on several fronts and not enough respect for pluralism.

Interesting but depressing article here about the politicisation of abortion in the US.

OK, I'm in.

I am truly amazed there is no legislation already that will cover this.

I am a Catholic and would not personally have an abortion unless my life was in danger but I support this campaign too. The behaviour of many protestors is absolutely disgusting and totally unChristian. There is no love and compassion, it's just cruelty. There is definitely a place for 'pro-life' (what does that even mean?) counselling but it absolutely has to be clear that that is what it is and that it's coming from a Christian perspective, otherwise it's not fair.

The problem with "pro-life" counselling is that it's not policed. There is no-one to check a vulnerable woman is being told, "these are my views as a Christian and they are not impartial".

IMVHO all counselling should be fact-based and impartial, not with a religious agenda.

I don't really agree with abortion in principle but its not like the majority of women seeking one are doing it as birth control & I'd hate to see back street abortionists operating again. I've seen articles saying some women are having repeated terminations but its none of my business either way.

Therefore it has to be an option because the alternatives are worse.

Rhonda, I mean that I became unexpectedly pregnant, for example, I would want to talk to someone impartial (i.e. someone I don't know) but from a Christian perspective because I AM a Christian, so it's natural for me to want that perspective and for someone to talk to me from that position. Of course I could talk to my priest but priests are not trained counsellors (well, some are, but mine isn't). So there's a place for it, but it needs to be clear about what it is and not talk bullshit like that place that told women having an abortion would turn them into child-abusers

I guess 'Christian counselling' is a more accurate term than 'pro-life'.

More descriptive, less emotive.

I think the kind of protest described in the OP is horrific, but I'm slightly cautious about setting a precedent. Animal rights campaigners protest outside labs and outside eg Boots, and we would surely defend someone's right to protest outside or indeed inside a business that was discriminating inappropriately.

This! I absolutely support the idea so far, but am a bit bothered it could lead to people wanting the same thing outside, for example, a tobacco company (they can say that's a choice too) then maybe start extending it to Government offices, military bases, fracking sites, Workfare providers etc etc...

Well, the government can change the law so you can't protest outside nuclear power stations etc. at any time. I don't think passing this law makes it more or less likely. Legislation doesn't require a precedent the way a judgment in court does.

I do think the protesters handing out threatening/gory leaflets should be dealt with by the police though! I used to get that creepy crap all over my social networks during the last US election, and some of it bothered me slightly although I'm not even pregnant. Shoving it at people outside clinics (which by the way do other things too) while shouting at them is not on!!

I totally support this.

I fully support this and hope Mumsnet can also support it.

I totally support this too although it amazes me that the police can't already deal with these protesters under existing legislation.

I understand that some pregnant women who are also practising Christians might want to speak to a Christian counsellor (but I'm still struggling with how a priest could offer anything in the way of support and advice to a woman seeking an abortion!), but the problem is that some women are signposted to Christian counsellors by their GP as they are the only providers in the area. So you may have a very vulnerable woman being counselled by someone with a Christian agenda, who may bring their religious beliefs into their role as counsellor.

Well you already can't protest at the door of military bases, power stations and the like because they're on private land, or heavily protected with chain link fences and the like.

The problem with clinics is that they're on the high street and have to be easy for people to access, which is why I have no problem with an exclusion zone. TBH I'd have no problem with an exclusion zone in other circumstances too - I used to work in a bank targeted (rightly, imo) by animal rights campaigners. They were no bother to those of us who worked in head office because we had security staff and a very big wall round the building, but it was often very difficult and scary for branch staff if branches (also open access and on the high street) were targeted. I would have supported an exclusion zone round branches too.

I don't think it's that off topic tbh loony.

The issues are similar in that people have the right to go to work and to access perfectly legal services, be they financial or health, without being harrassed and intimidated by other individuals or groups.

Ir1na - current legislation doesn't make it unlawful to gather, take photos, film, force leaflets on, shout abuse at or harass people on public property ie the path just outside the clinic. If you read the information from the BPAS above, this point is discussed and what they are actually proposing outlined in detail.

The legislation from British Columbia looks excellent btw.