Abortion advocate 'queasy' at UK buffer zone free speech implications

As pro-lifers are arrested for praying within abortion facility buffer zones, one abortion advocate is speaking out against the zones, saying the law is going too far.

Key Takeaways:

• In the United Kingdom, any kind of pro-life advocacy is banned within 150 feet of an abortion facility — even silent prayer.

• Scotland, in particular, sent letters to residents within a buffer zone saying that, depending on the circumstances, it is possible that certain activity within their own homes could trigger a buffer zone violation.

• Pro-abortion journalist Ella Whelan has since spoken out, saying these laws are unjust.

The Details:

In an op-ed for the Telegraph, Whelan spoke about against buffer zones, despite describing herself as "passionately pro-choice."

Since October of 2024, buffer zones have been in place in the United Kingdom around all abortion facilities and institutions that may commit abortions, such as hospitals. While Whelan said she didn't agree with pro-life advocacy within close proximity to abortion facilities, she still said the law makes "absolutist pro-choicers like me queasy about its free-speech implications."

This does not mean Whelan supports pro-life advocacy; on the contrary, she spoke strongly against it:

On the one hand, the dishonesty of many anti-abortion activists over what actually takes place during these “silent prayers” or “peaceful protests” is pretty galling, and underestimates the cruelty of holding out knitted boots to a woman grappling with a deeply personal, moral decision about her future.

They might not all be shouting “baby killer”, but the emotional blackmail and pressure exerted on women outside clinics before the buffer-zone law was disgraceful.

The most convincing argument I ever heard for safe zones was made on the basis that women seeking private medical care took on a different role than simply being a citizen out in the public square, where protest and conflict are to be tolerated and negotiated.

This idea that political protest – which even the kindest Christians are inevitably engaging in – should take a pause when someone inhabits the genuinely vulnerable role of patient for any medical procedure is one most of us would support. We don’t let religious groups try to stop teenagers from accessing contraception, or sick children from getting transplants. Why not protect women?

Things to Consider:

Offering aid to a woman who might be feeling pressured or coerced into abortion is not emotional blackmail, but Whelan apparently failed to consider such a scenario.

And it's interesting that Whelan refers to a woman making the decision to abort as "grappling with a deeply personal, moral decision about her future." Why would abortion be considered a "moral" decision if it isn't intentionally ending the life of an already-existing human being? If a woman feels traumatized by receiving knitted baby booties, could it be that this is because she knows what she is about to do to her preborn child and simply doesn't want to face the truth?

Allowing women to remain in denial about a life-altering act without offering them hope or other life-affirming help and options is no true choice at all.

Regardless, Whelan at least acknowledges that things have gone too far; in Scotland, she says, "Residents living less than 150 meters from a clinic had been sent letters telling them that they couldn’t say anything against abortion in their gardens, or with the window open."

Ultimately, Whelan said, free speech must be defended, even if it might end up making some people uncomfortable.

"[W]hen you allow the state to be the arbiter of what can and can’t be said, you always end up with problems," she concluded. "Buffer zones might be solving a very real and practical problem, but if the pro-choice community wants to win the battle of ideas for women’s freedom, autonomy for me and not for thee just won’t wash."

The Big Picture:

Whelan's op-ed sheds light on just how extreme buffer zone laws in the United Kingdom have become.

Recently, new guidance from the Police Service of Northern Ireland stated that clergy could potentially face arrest for carrying bibles within a buffer zone. So long as a "reasonable person" would say the action could be deemed as "indirectly influencing or distressing" a person within the buffer zone, it would be considered illegal.

This could even include a hospital chaplain carrying a bible through public areas of the facility.

• Retired preacher Clive Johnston (mentioned by Whelan), who was arrested for preaching the gospel within a buffer zone, despite mentioning nothing anything about abortion or trying to counsel anyone.

• A grandmother in Scotland was also arrested — twice — for holding a sign reading, "Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want," within a buffer zone without approaching anyone

• Another woman in Bournemoth was arrested for standing silently and holding a similar sign, which merely read, "Here to talk if you want to."

• In Birmingham, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce has been arrested three times for praying silently within a buffer zone.

The Bottom Line:

Regardless of whether one is pro-abortion or pro-life, the United Kingdom's buffer zone laws are extreme, with many rightly viewing them as clear attacks on freedom of speech and religion.