Veteran pro-abortion MP Rupa Huq has announced her intention of tabling an amendment that would introduce nationwide buffer zones around abortion clinics. SPUC said: “We will fight this measure – pro-lifers must have the freedom to offer help to women in need.”
The Ealing Central and Action MP, who has a long history of campaigning against peaceful pro-life vigils, brought up the issue during a debate on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. She said that an amendment was needed to “prohibit the longstanding and continual daily harassment and intimidation of women outside abortion clinics”.
We will fight this measure
SPUC’s Alithea Williams said: “This is the latest attempt by Rupa Huq to ban pro-lifers offering help to women outside abortion clinics. She throws around unsubstantiated accusations of harassment and intimidation, but never has anything to say about women who feel that abortion is their only option. These women are offered a lifeline by pro-life vigils. As we have done before, we will fight this measure – pro-lifers must have the freedom to offer help to women in need.”
The Government says that the bill is designed to plug gaps in the law in response to recent changes in the tactics employed by certain protesters, for example gluing themselves to buildings or vehicles, blocking bridges or otherwise obstructing access to buildings.
Earlier in the debate, a pro-life MP raised concerns that provisions in some of the Clauses in the bill as it stands could be used against pro-lifers taking part in vigils outside abortion clinics.
Fiona Bruce MP pointed out that Clause 54 talks of imposing conditions on processions that cause “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the procession.” This, she said “could significantly curtail the activities of peaceful pro-life vigils outside abortion centres.
“Organisations such as the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and MSI complain of harassment or intimidation, but this is rarely, if ever, supported by evidence,” she went on. “The test of “serious disruption” could remove the objectivity normally required for criminal prosecution and place the emphasis instead on the perception of an organisation. This has potentially far-reaching implications for the fundamental rights of those with non-mainstream views to assemble and express their views, and it is incumbent on this House to defend those rights, however much we approve or disapprove of such views.”
SPUC will be contacting supporters with information on how they can oppose national buffer zones.