Are pro-life speech and prayer under threat in Europe and the UK?

Last year, lawmakers in Scotland passed one of the most extreme buffer zone laws in the world — one that allegedly includes warnings that praying, even inside a resident’s own home, could now be illegal.

The “Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones)” legislation passed by a 118-to-one vote last June, and banned all pro-life activity within a minimum of a 200-meter space of a hospital or abortion facility. The ban includes signs and displays, even on private property, and the extreme legislation quickly came under criticism.

“MSPs have trampled on at least four European Convention of Human Rights and have introduced thought crime into Scottish society,” Michael Robinson, general secretary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), said, adding, “This is indeed a dark day in Scotland’s history.”

A chill to free speech… and a chilling warning

The law fully came into force in September 2024, and residents seemingly received a chilling warning that same month. According to a tweet from Kristan Hawkins, residents who live near an abortion facility were sent a letter warning them that praying, even inside their own homes, could be illegal.

The letter, sent by Safer Scotland, told residents that their homes lie within the safe access zone, and therefore, pro-life activity within that zone is banned — even potentially within their homes:

In general, the offences apply in public places within the Safe Access Zones. However, activities in a private place (such as a house) within the area between the protected premises and the boundary of a Zone could be an offence if they can be seen or heard within a Zone and are done intentionally or recklessly.

This is deeply concerning; the wording of this warning indicates that if the action might even be seen by others, it could qualify as an offense. So if someone were to stand in their window wearing a pro-life shirt and praying the rosary, is that now illegal?

The letter also encourages recipients to file complaints against neighbors they believe are breaking the law.

JD Vance weighs in on threats to pro-life free speech

This criminalization of free speech was harshly criticized by Vice President JD Vance in a speech before European leaders at a recent Munich Security Conference. He specifically mentioned the letter sent to Scottish residents who live near abortion facilities, as well as the criminalization of silent prayer in the United Kingdom, of which Scotland is a part.

In his speech, Vance stated:

I look to our very dear friends, the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons in particular in the crosshairs.

A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith-Connor, a 51-year-old physiotherapist and an Army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50 meters from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes.

Not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own.

After British law enforcement spotted him and demanded to know what he was praying for, Adam replied simply it was on behalf of the unborn son he and his former girlfriend had aborted years before.

Now the officers were not moved; Adam was found guilty of breaking the government’s new buffer zones law, which criminalizes silent prayer and other actions that could influence a person’s decision within 200 meters of an abortion facility. He was sentenced to pay thousands of pounds in legal costs to the prosecution.

Now, I wish I could say that this was a fluke, a one-off crazy example of a badly written law being enacted against a single person, but no.

This last October, just a few months ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so-called safe access zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law. Naturally, the government urged readers to report any fellow citizens suspected guilty of thought crime.

He concluded, “In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.”

“Fact check” falls flat

Yet Deutsche Welle, or DW, Germany’s version of NPR, attempted to “fact check” Vance’s statements, calling his remarks about Scotland’s buffer zone and Adam Smith-Connor “misleading.” (It seems relevant to note that, in Germany, online “trolls” are now being prosecuted, their homes raided for things like “posting a racist cartoon online” — which makes DW’s attempt to debunk Vance on free speech a bit unexpected, to say the least.)

In truth, DW did not debunk Vance.

DW wrote that while Scotland did, in fact, ban “‘silent prayer’ and similar pressure-building activities to keep women from going through with abortions, silent prayer at home with no distress to others is not included in the ban. However… even activities that can be seen or heard within the zone and are ‘done intentionally or recklessly’ in a private place within the area (like a house) between the protected premises and the boundary of a zone could be an offense” [emphases added].

So, where’s the misleading statement made by Vance? It appears that when Vance said “even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law,” he was correct. Despite this, MP Gillian Mackay attempted to “shame” Vance for calling out this draconian law. While Mackay claims that “no individual behavior is criminalized. Silent prayer or praying in your own home are not illegal as stated by the VP,” the actual text of the law appears to show otherwise.

DW then completely gives up any façade of impartiality as a “fact-checker” by claiming that “so-called ‘pro-lifers'” in the US “us[e] the cover of prayer to intimidate women entering [abortion] clinics to pressure them into keeping the baby.”

DW also inexplicably called Vance’s claims about Adam Smith-Connor “misleading.” Let’s see if we can figure out why…

Vance’s claim: Smith-Connor was “standing 50 meters from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes” in Bournemouth, “which criminalizes silent prayer and other actions that could influence a person’s decision within 200 meters of an abortion facility.”

Smith-Connor was “Not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own” when “British law enforcement spotted him and demanded to know what he was praying for.”

Smith-Connor “was found guilty of breaking the government’s new buffer zones law” and “was sentenced to pay thousands of pounds in legal costs to the prosecution.”

DW’s “fact check”: “Adam Smith-Connor was convicted of breaching a safe zone by praying outside an abortion clinic in Bournemouth in November 2022, after refusing repeated requests to leave the area. He was handed a 100-pound fine which he didn’t pay, triggering a court case. Ultimately, he was given a two-year conditional discharge and ordered to pay prosecution costs to the tune of 9,000 pounds ($11,300, €10,800).”

So… breached the safe zone – check. Interacts with British law enforcement for praying in that zone – check. Gets fined, goes to court, found guilty – check. Has to pay thousands of pounds in fines – check. What, exactly, was “misleading” about what Vance said in comparison to DW’s so-called “fact check”?

Oh, maybe it’s this part?…

Vance’s claim: “After British law enforcement spotted him and demanded to know what he was praying for, Adam replied simply it was on behalf of the unborn son he and his former girlfriend had aborted years before.”

DW’s “fact check”: “The son Smith-Connor said he was praying for was aborted over 20 years ago.”

Again… how are Vance’s statements about Smith-Connor’s aborted child misleading? The broad phrase, “years before” certainly includes “over 20 years ago.”

Oh, wait… maybe this has something to do with it… DW writes, “Smith-Connor is receiving legal support from an American conservative Christian legal advocacy group that has been labeled a “hate group.”…

Hmm! Perhaps DW’s “fact check” of Vance’s remarks regarding freedom of speech isn’t really about what Vance said at all.

Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.