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a clinic is located have felt so intimidated by the presence outside they have asked for the abortion service to be withdrawn.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

Does filming people going into the clinic and putting on the internet count as harassment Aduaz?

Aduaz let me get this straight: as a man, who will never have to deal with this, you think a woman dealing with a horrible situation as best as she can deserves to be harassed by someone who dislikes that medical care being legal?

I'm interested in this freedom you insist is imperative: do you also support the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest at funerals? Do you support the right of Nazis to interrupt services at Synagogues, or the EDL to interrupt prayers in Mosques? At what point do one person's rights transgress against another person's freedoms?

Buffer zones don't prevent protest. They prevent protesters being able to personally harass women accessing a very personal and emotionally difficult form of medical care.

Really interested in your seeming view that it is your right to insert yourself, as a man, into a conversation in which hundreds of women agree with almost total unanimity on a topic that can never affect you personally. The degree of entitlement you display is really rather impressive. If one wishes to be polite.

Yes, yes and yes again. A right to choose

Yes!!!!

100% support!

Their right to protest against abortion is equally as important as your right to have one.

No they are not. The right to access medical services is not equivalent to the right to protest in one particular geographical location. The former is more important than the latter.

I would assume that those MNers who honestly disagree with abortion on ethical grounds also disagree on ethical grounds with the harassment and distress needlessly and avoidably caused to vulnerable women

My position exactly. I have major issues with abortion per se and Marie stopes in particular (not BPaS so much) because their so called non-directive counselling seems to be a one way ticket to termination of pregnancy.

But further upsetting distressed women en route to surgery isn't the answer. Rich white married men simply shouldn't be shouting at poor black unmarried women about the "choice" they had little option about.

Being pro-life means valuing the woman's life, as well as that of the foetus/baby. Shame some "pro lifers" forget this basic point.

Yes

100% support

Have a day off, Aduaz.

You just love telling women how to feel about women's issues, don't you? Breastfeeding, rape, and now abortion.

Yes. 100% support this. Bullying of vulnerable women is never okay.

Yes, there should be a buffer zone.

I'm Catholic and I don't agree with abortion in most cases and i do think the laws should change but I've been in a situation where most people wouldn't have blamed me (son conceived through a series of very violent rapes when i was a teenager) and i won't lie, I did briefly think about abortion and i did go to the clinic for some information, I kept DS and I'm very glad I did (he's 10 now and I couldn't ask for a better son) but had there been the kind of protests that day that I've seen since, I don't think I would have coped, I struggled with self harm and suicidal thoughts and i genuinely think a bunch of judgy twats outside a clinic would have been enough to push me over the edge. Harassing people when they are vulnerable is not acceptable no matter what your beliefs.

I am very pleased to say my priest has banned the pro-life protesters from advertising their 'vigils outside the clinic' in his church. He has also, with my permission and without names, used my story to tell them why it's wrong he changed a few minds so maybe there is some hope in contacting various churches, obviously its not going to solve the problem but maybe it could put a few protesters off.

ifyourehoppyandyouknowit, filming you and putting it on the internet doesn't count as harassment. Anyone has the right to film you in a public place and do what they like with the footage. Fair play anyone (myself included) would prefer they didn't but it's their legal right to do so and most certainly doesn't cross the border into harassment.

sleeponeday yes I do support the right of Westboro Baptist to protest at funeral. I hate the message they have but very much defend their right to convey that message. I don't think we can call ourselves a tolerant society unless we extend tolerance even to the views we hate, the views we are disgusted by. If they don't cross the border into incitement, then we must defend their right to express their view.

TondelayoSchwarzkopf no they are both the same. You have a right to go about your business without being harassed, but you do NOT have a right to go about your business without being criticized. Encountering a peaceful anti abortion protest at a clinic is an example of criticism instead of harassment. Their right to vocally protest to you about what you are doing is equal to your right to actually have the abortion. The entire POINT of the protest is that it's the people having an abortion are the ones who hear and see the protest. Not having the protest at the clinic would defeat the purpose of the protest. As long as they don't cross the border into harassment or threats, there isn't a problem. No matter what you believe in or do there is always someone out there who will disagree with it and let you know quite clearly that they do. You need to accept that people can and will vocally oppose your opinion on something, and not demand a "buffer zone" to silence them.

Completely and wholeheartedly support this. In fact I think this type of intimidation should be banned completely. Its highly offensive and designed actively to distress and humiliate.

Aduaz, have you ever been to a protest outside a clinic? I have to walk past the clinic to get out my road, the peaceful protests there are still quite intimidating and even walking past is hard as they block the pavements and try to talk at you (even when you're just trying to get past to take your DC to school, which is another issue completely but really pisses me off)

BramwellBrown if it's a peaceful protest then sad as it might be for you, they have every right to be there. If and when they cross the line and start harassing you or threatening you, they should be stopped and we already have laws that can handle that.

Definitely support this - good for MN for highlighting this campaign

Aduaz - your posts come across as having no understanding or empathy for the women who feel intimidated. (please note mnhq - I said the posts, not the person)

Your posts come across as not understanding the context of the situation.

For example, I am often in people's photos,I work in an area of London that is full of tourists, taking the most random shots. This is different to being deliberately, and individually, photographed and filmed because you are going into a particular building because of what that building houses. The implicit threat that your possible desire to have a medical procedure will be put on youtube? If you can't see the difference, please think about it a bit harder.

Having seen at least one of these 'protests' I would describe them as intimidating and harassing

NormaStanleyFletcher I agree there are protests that become intimidating but there are also peaceful ones that aren't intimidating. The problem with the buffer zone idea is that it will not discriminate between a peaceful anti abortion protest outside a clinic, and a intimidating anti abortion protest outside a clinic. Can you suggest a way in which peaceful anti abortion protests could go ahead outside a clinic while protests that become intimidating can not?

Enough is enough, I support this.

Yes, please get behind this.

Absolutely, yes.

Oh and Aduaz, if you don't have a vagina, you don't get to have a say on this subject.

How is the 'peaceful' protest not intimidating? Can you describe what they do? Have you been to one? Have you been a woman having to walk through one?

Why do they need protests outside a clinic? Why can they not protest to "the authorities"? The government? Not the users and staff of a perfectly legal service?

What other medical procedure is there where you have to walk through a group of people protesting before you can get to your provider?

Should Jws be able to protest outside blood donation centres?