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a clinic is located have felt so intimidated by the presence outside they have asked for the abortion service to be withdrawn.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

Yes, this is an important issue and I would back this campaign 100%.

Hello

Just to recap - MNHQ is supporting this one - the weight of opinion on the thread is obvs overwhelmingly in favour.

Here's what you can do:

visit the Back Off site and have a look at the campaign actions - there's a function there for contacting your MP; and

spread the word on social media: the hashtag is #backoff and you can find BPAS on Twitter @bpas1968.

We've given our support officially and we'll be sending some tweets from the @MumsnetTowers Twitter account.

Thanks
MNHQ

I'm really pleased MN's backing this campaign. There are protesters outside a clinic near my work and it makes me so angry every time I see them there with their posters and their sets of plastic foetuses. I've sent to "Back Off" letter to my MP. Well done MN.

Aduaz, do you support JWs protesting outside surgical units, approaching patients who will need blood transfusions during surgery, filming them and possibly intimidating them away, resulting in life long consequences for their health?

Because that's a closer analogy.

Aduaz no, your right to drone self-importantly on does not equal someone else's right to access medical care with peace and dignity. Your thoughts on what should happen to a woman's body aren't more important than her own.

Of course people have the right to express views, and we have the option to march and to appeal to politicians in this country accordingly. But protestors outside abortion clinics aren't there to alter minds. They're there to scare the women away from accessing care. And what's more you know it, because if you didn't, you wouldn't be seeking to justify filming those women and putting the footage on the internet. You cannot simultaneously argue that the aim is to change minds and therefore such protest is only possible outside clinics, and simultaneously argue that such footage after the fact is okay. You are in fact arguing that men have the right to intimidate women into behaving as those men see fit, which is unsurprising given your posts elsewhere on MN, but do at least have the ovaries to admit as much.

If you believe freedom of speech is an absolute and protected right, then you are completely wrong. Harassment is a police matter, and so is racist language - both are crimes. It is a police matter to abuse someone racially because that infringes upon their right to live free of the unpleasant mental landscape bigots inhabit. It is a crime to undertake a course of action that a sensible person would recognise amounts to harassment. In simple language: you can't keep talking to someone who doesn't want to talk to you. They don't have to hear it if they don't want to. The "course of action" aspect means these people can harass women because each incident is unique and not a course of action, but personally I think the law should change so a serial harasser could have the incidents aggregated, even if there were several unique incidents supporting that complaint. (Would stop the nastier forms of street harassment, too.) You don't, actually, have the right to distress and unnerve women. I appreciate this is news to some.

Your views are clearly ones you regard as very important, but others do not necessarily have to listen to them - politicians, yes; random women, no. We have the right to believe most of what issues forth is steaming horse manure, and to ignore you accordingly. If people want to protest, fine. But not by infringing upon the freedom of other people to access medical care in peace. I don't see those in favour of choice arguing that they should be able to harass and intimidate people working for anti-choice organisations, or to follow them around haranguing them and forcing leaflets in their hands. Do you?

A buffer zone would not prevent misogynist arseholes from frothing at the mouth in the vicinity of women seeking access to abortion care. It would prevent them from invading their personal space, grabbing at them, shoving leaflets at them, and screaming in their faces. It would prevent them from filming them, following them and trying to stop them entering the building. All of which is what happens in this world - ask any abortion clinic volunteer in the States. This law seeks to ensure no women here ever face that level of aggression, by cutting off the possibility of that access.

You keep posting some variant on, "it's legal! So they can do it!" How is that relevant to a campaign about stopping this harassment being legal, by a change in the law? Surely even you - even you -can see the utter absurdity of that as an argument? The law reflects social beliefs. It is not set in stone from on high. And if this thread has shown anything, it should have shown you that most people vehemently disagree with you on this one, and think the law needs updating to reflect that.

I love you sleep

I wish I had the capacity to take down pathetic misogynists the way you can!

Yes from me as well.

I am personally against abortion as a personal choice.

However, if my life was threatened by the pregnancy I would have one.

Also, I am completely pro choice on this matter, although my personal feelings differ, I really believe that women should have a choice.

Also, doing that outside an abortion clinic is thoroughly wrong, always, no matter what your opinion, why on earth would you want to mentally harm another human being like that? Seriously?

absolutely not!!
i'm pro-choice. but also pro-freedom.
if they are in a public place, these 'protesters' should be allowed to do as they please (within the law). what we really need is pro-choice counter protest. considering all the big talk around here, i'm suprised that more people aren't actually out there openly offering support to women undergoing terminations.
do we really need more laws stopping our citizens expressing their opinions (however disgustingly misguided)?

and btw (since some fascists on here are purposely muddying the water), it is already illegal to 'grab at people', to 'scream in their faces', and to cause alarm/fear i general on public streets.
we need the police to enforce our current laws, as opposed to inventing more laws to step on our freedom.

Because that's just what the women accessing these clinics need - two groups of opposing protesters screaming across each other! Ridiculous.

Women need to be able to access these services with peace and privacy.

totswilde

since some 'FACISTS' on here...'

WTAF??? 'FACISTS'

Have we read the same thread? Or are you MrsAduaz by any chance

Truly, 'facists'?

Am rarely speechless but right now all I can offer is a as all other words fail me...

Oh, and its a mighty great YES from me too MNHQ

what we really need is pro-choice counter protest. considering all the big talk around here, i'm suprised that more people aren't actually out there openly offering support to women undergoing terminations.

Because that would make women seeking terminations feel so much better. A two-way bunfight, how absolutely ideal.

Extraordinary that some people feel there should be a protected right to harass, intimidate and harangue, least of all over a personal and legal choice. Genuinely cannot fathom that.

I think totswilde may not actually believe that post, but - judging by their other posts today, their joining day - he/she may here to cause trouble ...

ifyourehoppyandyouknowit I wouldn't like that but it would be your legal right to do it and I wouldn't want you to be denied your rights. Of course I would ask politely that you didn't but if you wanted to then it would be your right and like I said I wouldn't want that right removed from you.

100% support this.

Protesting against something that is so emotive is just plain cruel.

Thankfully, Aduaz, your opinion is in the tiniest minority on this thread, and HQ will be supporting BPAS in this.

But don't worry, just keep on flogging that horse

sleeponeday, a woman can still access medical care with peace and dignity if there is a protest outside. She just ignores what the protesters are saying and carries on. Some of you seem to want to live in a world where anyone who doesn't agree with you is legislated against, and you confuse your right not to be harassed with a supposed "right not to have to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with what you say but does so peacefully.

Yes, their right to protest is equally as important as your right to have an abortion. You wouldn't like it if they demanded that you not have an abortion because of their beliefs, so it works the othere way too. If there is a peaceful protest at a clinic you need to quite frankly suck it up and deal with it. They have a right to be there just like you have the right to have an abortion.

You wouldn't like it if they demanded that you not have an abortion because of their beliefs, so it works the othere way too.

That's exactly what they are doing.

They want the law changed to abolish abortion, or severely restricted, and they want to harass and intimidate (and upset) women, at the clinic doors, into not having an abortion.

MissManage what do you mean by "protesting against something that is so emotive is just plain cruel"? No it isn't. Many things have the potential to be an emotive subject. Our democracy has flourished because we encourage and respect people to protest for and against things, even very divisive issues. Votes for women was an emotive issue but I wouldn't have said the Suffragists were "just plain cruel" in their peaceful campaign. Or did the anti-suffrage politicians deserve to be able to go about their business without being "harassed" by peaceful suffragist protests?

Sabrinnnnnnnna no it's not. They are ASKING you not to have an abortion, this buffer zone is you TELLING them they aren't allowed to protest against you having one. Sabrinnnnnnnna if they do "harass and intimidate" you, then there are already laws to handle that. You don't have a right to go to a clinic without being upset, so nothing can be done about that. If them being there upsets you, suck it up and move on. They are of course just making their message heard and asking you not to have an abortion, you can chose not to listen to them and carry on with it.

You wouldn't like it if they demanded that you not have an abortion because of their beliefs

What on earth do you think the purpose of their protests are, you utter fool?