about abortion protests
The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Act received Royal Assent yesterday, on 22nd July. This means, sometime in the near future, there will be a 200m area around clinics providing abortion services where protests will not be allowed (often referred to as a ‘buffer zone’), and patients and staff will be able to access healthcare and their workplaces free from harassment. This is excellent news and the result of consistent work from individuals and organisations who remained ardent in the face of delays, slow progress and promises of ‘we’ll get to it.’
Safe access/buffer zones aren’t a particularly controversial proposition. Similar legislation is already in place in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. And it doesn’t actually have anything to do with the moral or legal status of abortion or any kind of ‘pro-choice’ vs ‘pro-life’ debate. Whether or not this legislation had passed would have in no way impacted the standing of abortion in Scotland. In Scots law, abortion is legal up to 24 weeks of pregnancy.1
The debate in this issue is about the right to protest, and to express one’s religion, loudly and disruptively in a way likely to impact people seeking healthcare in potentially vulnerable or emotional situations.
Under the new legislation, protests against abortion will not be outlawed. Nor will prayer vigils. There will just be spaces where this behaviour will not be permitted, to allow people to access medical treatment and their workplaces in peace. In the streets outside the buffer zones? In churches? Outside the Scottish Parliament? Have at it. Go nuts. I am very much in favour of protest generally, even when it’s disruptive or inconvenient to the public. However, accessing medical treatment is a very specific, vulnerable scenario and one which, in my view, should be protected.
The majority of Scottish people, and Scottish politicians, are in favour of abortion access. Restricting abortion access is not a proposition that is realistically on the table here right now. I feel very lucky to live in a country where that is the case. I’m aware of the situation elsewhere, where abortion services are far less accessible, and I know we are fortunate to live in a jurisdiction where, even if it takes a frustrating length of time, the legislators were willing to act in line with the views of the public, something that unfortunately can’t be said for every legislature.
The new legislation will prevent people gathering outside of abortion clinics to protest abortion, pray or dissuade people from accessing the services. The groups who do this are religious groups, propped up by American organisations. The main group, who protest for multiple weeks, twice a year, outside hospitals in Glasgow and Edinburgh, originated in Texas and now campaign worldwide.
I have complicated feelings about the local people who join these protest organisations. Scotland’s religious population has dwindled drastically and I imagine that must feel frightening for those who remain steadfast in their beliefs. Many of the protestors are catholic. I don’t follow any religion but I was raised in catholicism and have loose ties to some people who still hold, what I would consider, extreme religious beliefs. While I don’t agree with the things I see them post online or the things I hear second hand that they say in real life, I do sympathise. If I heard that a hospital in Glasgow was ‘killing babies’ (as they seem to earnestly believe is happening), I think I would feel compelled to do more than stand outside with a threatening sign.
Scotland has changed drastically in my lifetime in some ways. It’s definitely not perfect, but there is far more acceptance of many types of different people, different lifestyles and different choices than there was some time ago. I can imagine a certain type of person might feel like they’ve had the rug pulled out from under them, that we have all changed so quickly and left them behind and that they have no resources with which to catch up. When I say this, I’m not thinking of technologically literate people who have the means to intake other perspectives and find the medical and scientific positions. I’m thinking specifically of my retired primary school teacher with no children, a wholehearted faith in god and no relationships with people who aren’t in some way connected to catholicism (she taught at a catholic school her whole career and now her whole social circle is comprised of the parishioners most active in the local catholic church).
All this to say, I completely disagree with the many of protestors’ beliefs, morals and methods, but, when I think about them as individuals, I think much of it comes from a combination of a desire to do good and a manifestation of worry for and about modern Scotland. Some of it is religious fanaticism.
I’ve heard it said that the UK follow the US on a delay of around 5 years. And I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of those who are anti-choice becoming emboldened in the coming years, although I hope this isn’t the case. I can imagine this happening more in a UK context than I can in a Scotland-specific context. There is more scope for conservatism, reactionary politics and stoking of the ‘culture wars’ in the wider UK than there is in Scotland, although of course these things do exist here. I think a reason for that is that there is less media money to be made from espousing that kind of politics here.
The existence of outspoken anti-abortion organisations is why I feel conflicted about the calls to change the laws on abortion in Scotland/the UK. There are often calls from feminist organisations to properly decriminalise abortion. The way the law currently is in the UK, abortion is a crime, but there are certain circumstances in which it is legal. This is actually a relatively permissive situation in which abortion is fairly accessible, but it would be preferable if it was removed from the criminal law and treated as any other medical decision or procedure. However, if a new piece of legislation on abortion was to be proposed, debated and voted on, there is no guarantee that the new Act would be more liberal, only removing the illegality and the medically unnecessary requirement for two doctors to sign off on a procedure. I can easily envision a scenario where the resulting legislation makes abortion legal, but only until a point lower than the current 24 week limit, except in exceptional circumstances.
Religious and anti-abortion campaigners are listened to and taken seriously. Before the buffer zone bill was passed, the Scottish Parliament heard from a catholic Bishop in person on his disagreement with buffer zones (Scotland is not a catholic country). If the opportunity to potentially restrict abortion access arose, I imagine the aforementioned US-led organisation would increase their presence and campaigning efforts in Scotland. The potential resultant ‘compromise’ could end up being less favourable than the current legal situation.2 Although abortion has been decriminalised in Northern Ireland, it is only allowed up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. It is not out of the question that any change to the law in any other part of the UK could be influenced by this.
The buffer zone legislation took far longer than it arguably should have to even receive debate and discussion in the Scottish Parliament, after years of campaigning, delays and work to get it there. It came well after similar legislation in the rest of the UK.
It’s also important to note that abortions after 20 weeks, still within the 24 week legal limit, aren't being provided in any area in Scotland and many women have to travel to England to receive treatment.
So it’s not a utopian situation here. Although of course it is better than in many other places. There are several countries whose abortion laws I believe to be unduly restrictive. When I think about how relatively accessible abortion is in Scotland, and that our politicians have now taken steps which I hope should make the experience of accessing abortion services feel safer and less frightening, the automatic next thought is of people elsewhere who are not so fortunate. I’ve spent time in the US3 and I read Jessica Valenti’s work and I am often horrified by the real and potential harm caused by some of the laws over there. I think about women I know in the affected states and worry about what situations they might find themselves in. I read the real stories of real women who have suffered under these laws, and those in other restrictive jurisdictions, and it feels almost crass or insensitive to celebrate our ‘wins’ in an arena where others find themselves bleeding out with doctors unable, and lawmakers unwilling, to help them.
With the approval of two doctors. This should not be the case — abortion should be covered by criminal law in the same way as any other medical procedure — but the two doctor requirement is not the evidential burden that this restriction might suggest. It is also legal after 24 weeks in other limited circumstances.
The statute which criminalises abortion in England and Wales never applied in Scotland. We follow the rules of the Abortion Act 1967 as they do, which does apply in Scotland, but our legal situation outwith that is more complicated, could be its own essay, and is actually not very relevant.
This is far from the only country whose abortion laws make me worry for their citizens, but in the UK we are exposed to more American media than media from anywhere else. And, personally, that’s the affected country in which I have spent the most time over the last few years and where I know people.