I've done a complete about face on this. I've never been on a vigil outside a clinic, and I don't think they are a good idea, but I was ambivalent about bans because it's a bit of wobbly line in terms of freedom to protest.
I understand the mindset. Some of the people on vigils are undoubtedly motivated by controlling women, but there are a few who have tunnel-visioned compassion and genuinely believe they are some sort of last line of defence, rescuing women and children. And a handful of women have changed their minds and kept their children.
However.
The reason those women changed their minds was because they had not received enough support to make a decision they were 100% sure, and the way to resolve that is to pour energy into making sure there is a change in culture and support for women do that those for whom having a child is not truly unthinkable, but they just need specific support, receive that support.
Pro life groups that campaign for that kind of support, be it adequate counselling, or political changes so that women are safe from abuse and ok financially or able to continue study, have my support. I think that's an appropriate perspective if you claim to be pro-woman and pro-life.
But holding these kinds of protests is at best a thumpingly insensitive and astoundingly ineffective way to help them and make the case that you 'care about both', and at worst harassing and intimidating women and simply adding to their distress as they have a completely legal procedure and compounding any future emotional fallout from it.
For the reason, I am 100% in favour of buffer zones, and I implore pro-life women, some of whom I know are genuine about their motivation to 'love them both', spend your energies on methods of supporting women that will not also distress and frighten them. You are being profoundly inconsistent here.