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a clinic is located have felt so intimidated by the presence outside they have asked for the abortion service to be withdrawn.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

basgetti do not insult me. They are ASKING you not to have an abortion, they are saying here is our message this is what we think and we want you to take that on board and not abort. They aren't telling you that you literally aren't allowed to have one.

You don't have a right to go to a clinic without being upset

That's where we disagree, Aduaz - and is the basis of BPAS's campaign. Women should have the right to access medical services unimpeded by people asking (and we've all seen the protesters, they are not asking nicely ) them not to in an intimidating and harassing manner.

No they don't have the right ask any woman not to have an abortion. It is that individual's choice - nothing to do with them.

Well hopefully they won't be able to ASK strangers not to access legal medical care for much longer then, if this campaign is successful. In all other areas of medical treatment patients have the right to privacy, this should be no different.

And you are being pretty disingenuous to suggest that some of the tactics they use are the equivalent of 'asking'.

Yes.

Please support this Mumsnet

Yes, ludicrous to try and make out they are just "asking"!

Foolish indeed.

You have a right to not be harassed. If you're being harassed there are already laws in place to handle it. You do NOT have a right to not be upset/offended by anyone. Such a right should never exist because of how subjective "offence" is. You could probably find someone who would take offence to every belief or opinion you have, but you still get to have and express those opinions because the other person doesn't have a "right" not to be offended by it.

People are free to make their voice heard, to challenge you about your decision or beliefs, without the fear of being locked up for it or prevented from doing so. This is how we make progress. Less than a century ago votes for women was as emotive an issue as abortion is now. Of course you can rant on about how politicians and others back then shouldn't have had to be "harassed" or "intimidated" by suffragists protests, the truth is there wasn't any harassment. They were just being inconvenienced and forced to listen to the other side of the argument and they didn't like it. A bit like you are now.

Aduaz - the problem with what you're saying is that the whole definition of harassment stands on how the person being subjected to the behaviour feels.

"This legal guidance addresses behaviour which is repeated and unwanted by the victim and which causes the victim alarm or distress. "

Therefore, in summary, your opinion means jack shit, and what matters is how the women who are accessing the clinics feel.

Not caught up with thread but this is nonsense:

"You do NOT have a right to not be upset/offended by anyone. Such a right should never exist because of how subjective "offence" is. You could probably find someone who would take offence to every belief or opinion you have, but you still get to have and express those opinions because the other person doesn't have a "right" not to be offended by it."

In the UK hate speech is a crime.

"Of course you can rant on about how politicians and others back then shouldn't have had to be "harassed" or "intimidated" by suffragists protests, the truth is there wasn't any harassment. They were just being inconvenienced and forced to listen to the other side of the argument and they didn't like it. "

The suffragettes committed arson attacks, amongst other things.

We don't have an absolute right to freedom of speech in the UK anyway. There are many exceptions to it including words or behaviour either intending or likely to cause alarm, harassment or distress. I'd say that these protests fit that criteria.

I am pro life and anti abortion but I do think there should be a buffer zone to prevent direct conflicts, that said pro life groups have a right to protest and are fully entitled to their views - it is wrong to dismiss them out of hand.

I don't think anyone is! It's been said several times on this thread that everyone has a right to protest, peacefully.

But the problem is that these people aren't just protesting - they are intimidating and harassing the women using the clinics.

Oh having caught up I see that poster is just having fun winding women up about something that is very important to them.

And now others have pointed it out I recall he is one who likes to think that in many cases when a woman is raped she brought it on herself.

Interestingly he thinks that it is very important that if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant and wants an abortion, she gets people up in her face making things as difficult for her as possible.

Basically someone who likes seeing women upset. Oh, and who doesn't knwo much about history or UK law. Well then

if you have a problem with the law you protest to the lawmakers not everyday citizens going about their lawful activity.

if you have a problem with the banks you protest against legislators, the banking regulators, the decision makers and profiteers - not the bank tellers going to work.

if, for example, you thought young girls shouldn't be given the hpv vacinnation you protest the authorites NOT the poor bloody schoolgirl going to get her jab.

the distinction is obvious.

for some women entering that clinic they may be accessing life saving treatment - you do not interfere with and cause access issues. some women may be the victims of rape or incest, some may underage girls - children effectively. these are a whole range of people accessing a health service for a whole range of reasons. they have every right to do so without being subjected to religious extremists in their faces in the 21st century.

freedom of speech is not freedom to spout hate or harass people or inflict your misogynistic prehistoric belief systems on others. freedom of speech means you can say what you want in your church, you can write stern letters to your mp, you can arrange a march through london to protest your point, in the case of religion it means you can flout employment law and the equality act in your own organisations etc. it doesn't mean people can intimidate, interfere with or upset other individuals trying to access health services or have the right to spout your crap at citizens who don't want to hear it.

Absolutely support petition for buffer zones.

the equivalent really is to say oh it's fine for people to stand outside a registry office shouting homophobic crap and beseiging couples not to go through with their civil partnerships, taking their photos to 'out' them, shoving leaflets in their face telling them about the dangers and damnation of homosexuality.

though maybe our resident ew, women, they have breast milk and are icky, person would be cool with that too.

Aduaz's posts have just proved why the buffer zones are necessary.

Yes, I support it, MNHQ.

I support this 100%.

Yes, I support this, 100%.

Yes please MN. Despicable behaviour towards women in a very difficult and vulnerable situation and towards the staff doing their best to help them.

I totally support this. Let's do it!