Should anti-abortion groups be allowed to protest outside clinics?

What happens when rights collide

On 26 September, 40 Days for Life will begin “the largest and longest internationally coordinated pro-life mobilisation in history”.   The organisation is US-based, but operates worldwide. Ostensibly it exists to organise 40 days of Christian prayer and fasting, peaceful vigil and community outreach.  It just so happens this will be directly outside nine UK abortion providers including BPAS, Marie Stopes and NHS hospitals.

In our country it is clearly legal and permissible to organise a prayer vigil.  It is also permissible to seek advice on a termination and to have one carried out, within the terms of the law.  The question arises of what happens when the exercise of the first of these impinges on the second.

40 Days states that Christ taught us that some demons can only be driven out by prayer and fasting, and that these acts will bring an end to abortion. On its website it quotes from the Book of Chronicles about wicked people being listened to from heaven, and having their sins forgiven.  However, many would say it is less God’s intervention than the actions of its 500K+ members, which have led to the specific measurable results it boasts of.  These include having closed down 24 abortion centres, 69 workers having quit their jobs, and having “saved” 5,928 babies to date worldwide.

40 Days is not a simple prayer group: it is a highly organised body that agitates to obstruct and prevent individual women seeking legal terminations.  Participants book specific timeslots over its website at the locations targeted.  There’s a code of conduct for participants, none of which prohibits displaying distressing images, or photographing or filming attendees (all of which have happened previously at 40 Day vigils in the UK).  Last week members of the anti-abortion group, Abort67, were found not guilty of public order offences for displaying large images of aborted foetuses and approaching women entering a clinic in Brighton. One complainant had apparently been raped; another was attending following a miscarriage.

Most of us would doubtless subscribe broadly to the old line (misattributed to Voltaire) that we might disagree with someone’s view, but defend their right to say it.  This suggests an acceptance that freedom of speech should be an absolute, unlimited right.  In fact, almost everywhere the right is qualified, and for very good reason. In the US, the First Amendment is limited by a series of cases such as Schenck v US (the famous quote about free speech not protecting falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic). In Europe, Article 10(2) of the ECHR specifically sets out permissible limitations on freedom of expression. We can, and should, argue about the parameters: draw the precise line where you will on the incitement of violence, hate speech, child pornography etc.  It is about balancing free speech with other values and rights society wishes to defend.

What is often missing, however, is an understanding that the context is sometimes as relevant as the words themselves. I personally have no problem with “Racist Tram Woman” expressing her views about immigration on a YouTube video. I’d probably listen for a bit, switch off and feel pity that someone has so much hatred.  No harm done: she is entitled to her views and I chose to listen. However, I do have an issue when the same words are directed at specific people on public transport. Their right not to feel threatened, to a quiet journey and to not be racially abused in front of their children conflicts with her right to express her views. The place and context are highly relevant. Similarly, shout “fire” at me in a soggy English field and I’d look round and not be alarmed, but in a crowded room I can well see why your right should be restricted. 

Fortunately most people realise that just because a right exists, doesn't mean it is must be exercised it in all contexts at all times.  I don’t need the law to dictate to me that I shouldn’t make cancer jokes to someone whose mother died of cancer. I inherently see the harm in that, even if I “have the right” to do so. Like most people in society, I try to exercise my rights mindful of others.

The problem comes when a minority of people use their speech to deliberately conflict with other people’s rights. Westboro Baptist Church is famous for picketing soldiers’ funerals with “God Hates Fags” signs. They believe God is punishing America by the deaths for its “gay tolerance”.  This led in August to President Obama’s signing a federal law that prohibited protests near military funerals. A Californian law was also signed this week that prevents protests within 300 feet of all funerals (Aids victims’ families have also been targeted).  

Free speech is the absolute cornerstone of a healthy, democratic society and restrictions on it must be limited and for good reason.  The above laws attempt to balance First Amendment rights with the rights of others to privacy and dignity, in the specific very upsetting context of a funeral. They permit the Westboro Baptists to express their views, but do not allow them to do so in a particular, limited place.

With this example in mind, we return to anti-abortion groups.  I do not agree with 40 Days that a woman may possess “evil demons that must be cast out”, but if they wish to “educate about abortion” on the internet, on street corners, in newspapers or in their churches, they should feel free. If they wish to change our abortion laws, they should march, lobby and bring the issue to politicians’ attention.  They could do this far more effectively in Westminster than outside an NHS hospital in Southampton.  If they truly believe that prayer and fasting will bring an end to abortion, they are welcome to organise vigils entirely free of food in any number of venues.  They presumably need not be outside clinics for an omnipresent God to hear them.

They are, of course, however highly disingenuous about their intentions.  They are groups that seek to bring about the end of abortion by influencing individuals in the difficult and sometimes deeply traumatic position of an unwanted pregnancy. They protest in front of clinics. It is hard to view their actions as not being direct intimidation. Their aims are quite transparent: to scare women off from having terminations and to close down services offering them.

We are faced again with a balancing act. There’s the wider social interest in protecting free speech, and the two sets of individual conflicting rights: the protestors who want to impose their personal values; and the rights of potentially vulnerable women to have privacy, access entirely legal services, and not feel threatened. A law that moves their vigils away from the doors of clinics undoubtedly involves a limited restriction on free speech. The protestors are still free to express their views, just not in a specific context, where it is likely to deliberately impinge on the rights of others. As such I’m clear where the balance rests for me, just as I’m clear that US-style anti-abortion tactics are here to stay in this country.

Pro-life protestor in the US. Credit: Getty Images
Getty
Show Hide image

After his latest reshuffle, who’s who on Donald Trump’s campaign team?

Following a number of personnel shake-ups, here is a guide to who’s in and who’s out of the Republican candidate’s campaign team.

Donald Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, stepped down last week. A man as controversial as Trump himself, he has departed following the announcement last Wednesday of a new campaign manager and CEO for Team Trump. Manafort had only been in the post for two months, following another campaign team reshuffle by Trump back in June.

In order to keep up with the cast changes within Team Trump, here’s the low-down of who is who in the Republican candidate’s camp, and who-was-who before they, for one reason or another, fell out of favour.

IN

Kellyanne Conway, campaign manager

Kellyane Conway is a Republican campaign manager with a history of clients who do a line in outlandish statements. Former Missouri Congressman Todd Akin, whose campaign Conway managed in 2012, is infamous for his comments on “legitimate rape”.

Despite losing that campaign, Conway’s experiences with outspoken male candidates should stand her in good stead to run Trump’s bid. She is already credited with somewhat tempering his rhetoric, through the use of pre-written speeches, teleprompters and his recent apology, although he has since walked that back.

Conway is described as an expert in delivering messages to female voters and has had her own polling outfit, The Polling Firm/WomanTrend for over 20 years and supported Ted Cruz’s campaign before he was vanquished by Trump in May. Her strategy will include praising Trump on TV and trying to craft an image of him as a dependable candidate without diminishing his outlier appeal.

She recently told MSNBC, “I think you should judge people by their actions, not just their words on a campaign trail”. Given that Trump’s campaign pledges, particularly those on immigration, veer towards the completely unworkable, one wonders what else besides words he actually has to offer.

Perhaps Conway, with her experience of attempting to repackage gaffes will be the one to tell us. Conway also told TIME magazine that there is “no question” that Trump is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton. Given Trump’s frightening comments on abortion, to name just one issue, it’s difficult to see how this would prove true.

Stephen Bannon, campaign CEO

While Conway may bring a more thoughtful, considered touch to Trump’s hitherto frenetic campaigning, Stephen Bannon promises to bring just the opposite.

Bannon is executive chairman of right-wing media outlet Breitbart, also the online home of British alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. Once described by Bloomberg as “the most dangerous political operative in America”, the ex-Goldman Sachs banker can only be expected to want to up Trump’s rhetoric as the election approaches to maintain his radical edge.

Trump has explicitly stated that: “I don’t wanna change. I mean, you have to be you. If you start pivoting, you’re not being honest with people”.

As Bannon leads a news site with sometimes as outlandish and insensitive views as Trump himself, one can safely assume that Bannon will have no problem letting Trump “be himself”.

The Trump Brood, advisers

While his employed advisers come and go, the people that have been unwaveringly loyal to Trump, and play key advisory roles, are his four adult children: Donald Jr, 38, Ivanka, 34, Erik 22 and Tiffany, 22. With personalities as colourful as their father’s, the Trump children have been close to the campaign since its inception.

Donald Jr personally delivered the bad news to Lewandowski, the younger Trumps describing him as a “control freak”. Although it’s common for the offspring of politicians to take part in their parent’s campaigns (see Chelsea Clinton), in Trump’s case the influence of his children goes undiluted by swathes of professionals. This, despite his actual employed campaign directors being experienced establishment figures, adds credence to the image of Trump’s brand as family-based and folksy, furthering also his criticism of Hillary Clinton as being “crookedly” in the sway of bankers and elites.

Lewandowski’s ultimate downfall has been attributed to his attempts to spread negative stories in the media about Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and husband of Ivanka. Ivanka and Kushner were long-time critics of Lewandowski for his indulgence and encouragement of Trump’s most divisive instincts, and apparently they were integral to his firing.

Whether any good came from this is hard to discern, as Trump still managed to insult the Muslim community all over again with his comments last month about the late solider Humayun Khan, also insulting veterans and “gold star” families in the process.

OUT

Paul Manafort, former national campaign chair

Although Trump called his departing campaign manager “a true professional”, Manafort has recently been beset by personal controversy and criticised for failing to deliver results. Manafort has taken the blame for the poor polling results that have followed Trump’s awful last few weeks, with Trump’s recent (lacklustre and unspecific) apology representing a complete change of tack.

Despite his many years of experience in politics, Manafort fell out of favour with Trump partly because of his spending on media, such as a $4 radio appearance in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina. Trump was judging these investments worthwhile.

Manafort’s personal cachet was also diminished by his dodgy links to ex-clients including Ukrainian former prime minister, the pro-Russian Victor Yanukovych. As Trump has already racked up a number of Russia-related gaffes, continued association was Manafort would have likely proven electorally unwise.

Corey Lewandowski, former campaign manager

Campaign manager until Trump’s team shake-up in June this year, Lewandowski was not the picture of a calm and collected operative. With a list of antics behind him such as bringing a gun to work and then suing when it was taken away from him and lacking the experience of ever having directed a national race, Lewandowski was a divisive figure from the start of Trump’s bid for the nomination.

Although Lewandowski most often accompanied Trump on the nomination campaign trail, it was Manafort, even then, who was in charge of most of the campaign’s logistics, making use of his 40 plus years of experience to do so.

Trump was clearly taken with Lewandowski’s aggressive campaign techniques, as he stood by him even when Lewandowski was charged with battery against former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields. Although the charges were later dropped, these kind of stories do not bode well for Conway’s hopes for a more women-friendly Trump.

***

Perhaps this latest round of hiring and firing will do him some good, but with only three weeks to go until absentee voting begins in some states, the new team doesn’t have much time.