Parliament is in the process of debating the Public Order Bill which, in Amendment NC11, would introduce “buffer zones” outside abortion facilities across England and Wales to ban pro-life volunteers. The Bill, which passed through the House of Commons last week, is due to go to second reading in the Lords tomorrow (Tuesday).
While most people absolutely condemn the harassment of women under these circumstances and indeed any circumstances, aggressive and threatening behaviour is already illegal. But the proposed bill goes further to prohibit “advising”, “persuading”, “influencing” and even “the expression of opinion” outside abortion facilities.
It bans, for the first time, the mere “occupying” of a public space, which means people could be criminalised simply for what they believe, whom they are associated with, and being present in an area where others disagree with them.
As Gavin Ashenden wrote in the Herald last week, this reduces the threshold of criminality to such vaguely low standards that it contravenes the rule of law and, in particular, the principle of certainty.
Could a parent or social worker be criminalised for “advising” a confused teenager outside a clinic? Does mere peaceful presence amount to intimidation? It seems that it does.
Although amendment NC11 does not specifically mention banning “silent prayer”, it seems that proponents intend for it to be included. The Scottish government, for one, made clear at a Supreme Court hearing in July that they would include prayer within the scope of “influencing” in their “buffer zones” legislation, with the Lord Advocate testifying that silent prayer could cause “psychological damage”, a familiar accusation made by those who wish to limit free speech on other controversial issues such as gender and sexuality.
But what about the psychological damage caused by abortion? Even if you don’t care about the foetus, if you care about women, how can the psychological, and indeed physical, effects of an abortion not be a consideration? The answer can only be that this bill is not really about women’s rights, but about virtue signalling, which is simply not a good enough reason to vote for something where lives are at stake.
Many of the parliamentarians who have voted in favour of introducing buffer zones will have given little real thought to the issue. I have worked in parliament and I know how it works. MP to SPAD: “Shall I vote in favour of buffer zones outside abortion clinics?” SPAD: “Yes, otherwise everyone will call you a bigot and you’ll lose the young vote.” MP: “Okay, good point, fine. Now, what’s next?”
But what about the women who want to keep their babies but feel they can’t? Why does no one give them any thought? What about the ones who did end up keeping their babies? Why do we never hear about them?
In many such cases, the offer of charitable help often outside abortion clinics has proven a lifeline to those women who are persuaded to see abortion as their only option. The voices of these women who have been in need have been lost in the public conversation.
Recently a young woman I know found herself unexpectedly pregnant. Confused, lost and petrified, she was persuaded by those closest to her to keep the baby. Now six months old, the little girl is perfect, and her mother, though shell-shocked by a rather earlier introduction to motherhood than she might have wanted, is delighted with her. And the joy she brings to the rest of her family is immeasurable.
When I see this lovely little girl, my heart wrenches as I think that had she been conceived by someone else without the same support network, she may never have seen the light of day. She might have been another victim of our culture’s obsession with “reproductive rights”.
Once the principle of banning protest, or even thought in this case, is affirmed, why stop at pro-lifers and abortion clinics? It is bound to set a precedent for other institutions to ask for their own buffer zones. What could this mean for embassies? Or gender critical rallies outside a town hall which could be deemed as upsetting or “psychologically damaging” to passers-by? Indeed, affirming that “expressing opinions”, “advising”, “influencing” or “persuading” on elements considered to be protected under article 8 rights to health/privacy could have potential parallel consequences on people’s abilities to express concerns about, for example, children having access to puberty blockers or other “gender-affirming” treatment.
I hope members of the House of Lords will prove themselves braver, more intelligent and less driven by dark and destructive ideologies than their elected counterparts, and vote against this dreadful amendment.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.