Have you seen our Protect Our Children Campaign?

Major ProLife Victory in Scotland

Scotland now has some of the most extreme pro-abortion legislation in the world, so a court verdict in favour of the right of pro-life activists to offer support to worried mothers is very welcome indeed.

A Scottish grandmother who was arrested for holding a sign in an abortion “buffer zone” has had the charges against her dropped.

Rose Docherty, 75, was the first person to be charged under the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act, Scotland’s buffer zone legislation.

Docherty was arrested and charged in September last year for holding a sign outside the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow that read “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want”.

The case against Rose Docherty was dropped following an argument from her legal team that the charges against her violated her Article 10 right to freedom of expression. 

On hearing the verdict, Docherty said, “This verdict is a major victory for free speech in Scotland and the UK. It shows that peacefully offering consensual conversation on a public street, which is all I have ever done, can never be a crime”.

“My case shows how ‘buffer zones’ are used by authorities to impose censorship. ‘Buffer zone’ legislation must be repealed in Scotland and across the UK to ensure it is not misused to target peaceful and lawful expression again in the future”, she added.

Scotland’s buffer zone legislation is the most extreme legislation of its kind in the world.

It creates a minimum of 200m ‘safe access’, or buffer, zones around any facility that performs abortions, where offering support to women would be criminalised. The 200m is a minimum, as abortion providers can apply for the zone to be extended, with the Act giving the Scottish Government the power to extend any buffer zone beyond the 200m if they judge that the existing zone “does not adequately protect” women seeking an abortion. There is no limit on the size of the buffer zone that can be created under this power.

The minimum size of the buffer zones in Scotland extends further than the minimum size of any other buffer zones in the world. For example, the Public Order Act 2023 in England and Wales sets the limits of the buffer zones at 150m and the legislation does not give the Government the power to extend buffer zones beyond 150m. Most buffer zones in Northern Ireland are 100m, half the size of those in Scotland. 

Within these zones, it is illegal to influence a person in regard to their decision “to access… the provision of abortion” in an abortion clinic or a hospital. These provisions make offers of help to women seeking an abortion, such as what Rose Docherty was alleged to have been doing, illegal within a buffer zone, and could criminalise silent prayer.

Anyone who commits an offence can be fined up to £10,000 on a summary conviction, or an unlimited fine on indictment.

The provisions of the Act apply to anything that is “visible or audible” within a buffer zone, even if these relate to private buildings. This means it may be illegal for pro-life signs to be displayed from a window within a private home or outside a place of worship if the signs are within the boundaries of or visible to a buffer zone. Similarly, conversations in private homes or outside churches may be included if they are audible inside a buffer zone. Referring to private dwellings, Gillian Mackay, who introduced the legislation, told the Committee “it is essential that such premises are covered by the legislation”.

What is essential is that babies are saved, and more will be thanks to this court verdict and the courage of Rose Docherty.

2/3 of Public Oppose Return of Assisted Suicide Bill

More than two-thirds of the British [ublic have seen through the Labour effort to push assisted suicide on the country. New polling has revealed that fewer than one in three (29%) of the general public think that a new assisted suicide bill should be introduced as soon as possible in the same form as the assisted suicide Bill that has failed to become law – as would have to happen should an MP want to use the Parliament Acts to bypass the House of Lords to force the Bill into law.

In contrast, a majority of the public (53%) think the Bill should either not return or, if it returns, it should be introduced with stronger safeguards, which would mean introducing a different Bill, therefore ruling out the use of the Parliament Acts to bypass the Lords.

The polling also found that only 34% of the public polled thought the Lords should not be able to block laws passed by elected MPs if the law is not in the Government’s manifesto. Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill is a Private Members’ Bill and was not part of Labour’s General Election manifesto.

Following the failure of Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill, polling organisation More in Common asked 2,041 adults in Britain at the end of April this year which safeguards would be important to them should another assisted suicide Bill be introduced. 

The polling found that the overwhelming majority of the public believes that, if the assisted suicide Bill were to return, palliative care must first be offered as an alternative to assisted suicide before assisted suicide can take place

90% of respondents who took a position on the question thought that palliative care must be offered as an alternative to assisted suicide first. 52% of respondents agreed it was “essential” that palliative care must be offered as an alternative to assisted suicide first and a further 31% said this was “Good to have”. Only 9% thought it unnecessary.

The polling also found 71% of those who took a position were supportive of the need for approval from a judge as a safeguard. 34% of respondents agreed it was “essential” that a judge approve assisted suicide and a further 30% said this was “Good to have”.

In March last year, Kim Leadbeater removed the requirement that a High Court judge approve assisted suicide applications, despite the fact that this was presented as the flagship safeguard of her Bill, and despite assurances from her that this safeguard would not be removed. The More in Common polling shows the overwhelming majority of the public would want this safeguard in place should an assisted suicide Bill return.

The polling also found 95% of those who took a position were supportive of the need for “strict rules against family or financial pressure on the patient” as a safeguard in cases of assisted suicide. 65% of respondents agreed this safeguard was “essential” and a further 22% said it was “Good to have”.