Media

By Sarah Haque

The line is faint, but it’s there.

Alice is perched on the edge of a toilet in the staff stalls at H&M, holding a pregnancy test between her fingers. She squints. It’s a cheap one, two pounds. She takes a picture of it and sends it to a friend: can I get a second opinion on this?

Her knee bounces as she waits for a reply, but she’s not anxious. Not really. Women have options in the U.K. At the time, she is a 20-year-old Social Anthropology student at the University of Edinburgh, still in the early days of a semi-casual relationship, with her entire life stretched out ahead of her. She knows what she wants almost immediately. The next day – after some research and a second test just to be certain – she calls up Chalmers Sexual Health Centre and tells them she is looking to get an abortion.

'I knew straight away that, no, that’s not going to be my path right now,' she says.

The day of the procedure isn’t her first time at Chalmers. She’d visited over a year ago to get her Nexplanon implant taken out and trusted the staff there. The streets outside are extremely narrow, so the six people waiting outside the clinic that day form a crowd. She had heard rumours about them, but seeing them was different. They’re handing out leaflets and chanting loudly, a sort of prayer. They’re here to protest abortions – they're here to protest... her.

Alice can feel their eyes moving along the length of her body, homing in. Her feet begin to move of their own accord, as if independent from her legs. She can hear the clicks of her shoes against the pavement, the blood pumping in her ears. Her eyes glaze over in the way womens’ do when they are avoiding suspicious men: a simultaneously pointed and unfocused gaze, hoping to look unapproachable. Hoping to become, for a moment, invisible.

'It made me feel really angry. And a little helpless as well,' Alice says. 'You feel like someone should be doing something about that.'

While clinics across the country underwent a brief reprieve from anti-abortion activists at the start of the pandemic – when social distancing rules were still firmly enforced – protests have returned, and with unexpected new vigour. Many clinics are facing unprecedented crowds and clinics with no previous record of picketing, are being targeted for the first time.

GETTY

'We are seeing increased activity, an increase of people involved,' Rachael Clarke, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at abortion provider British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), says.

Currently, 40 Days for Life, a US-based organisation with outposts in Britain, is conducting ‘vigils’ outside 14 abortion clinics across the UK until the end of October. It comes at the heels of Texas’s law prohibiting abortions as early as six weeks – before many women even know they are pregnant – and giving individuals the right to sue abortion providers, which came into force last month.

Clarke states there has been a recent ‘Americanisation’ of these protests, thanks in no small part to the internet; social media in particular. Over the last decade, transatlantic anti-abortion groups founded in US states have infiltrated, and now spearhead, the protests here.

In response, the pro-choice movement is also gaining momentum, with activist groups lobbying for policy changes about who can congregate outside clinics. The clash of ideologies translates, often, to a real life line in the sand, with picketers facing off in the streets.

As this battle worsens, it has huge implications for the women seeking family planning services up and down the country.

The Clinics

For decades, anti-abortion protestors have congregated outside Britain’s abortion clinics, hoping to change the minds of women trying to access the urgent reproductive services inside. But lately, their efforts have increased, with more active collaboration between anti-abortion organisations.

'They're coordinating and supporting each other's messages more than they used to do,' says Dr. Pam Lowe, an academic at Aston University specialising in female reproductive rights. 'There is evidence that the anti-abortion organisations are now able to mobilise more people who are already against abortion.'

Sometimes, they stand and pray, or sing hymns. Others lug placards depicting bloody images of foetuses or religious rhetoric – ‘Jesus won’t forgive you’ (if you go through with this) or ‘Jesus will forgive you’ (if you turn back now). Some carry body cams to record women accessing the clinic and threaten to release the footage online. There are reported incidents of protestors handing out knitted booties or rosary beads, touting pamphlets with medical misinformation, and shouting ‘mummy!’ at women entering the clinic.

Many of the women they encounter are young and vulnerable. There are victims of rape or domestic abuse. Women with wanted pregnancies that have revealed severe medical complications in their antenatal screenings. Trauma-ridden women with taut relationships to religious domination or patriarchal judgement. Women who feel guilty. Women who are grieving.

Alice had to get through an hourlong safeguarding appointment before they signed her off for a medical abortion. They discussed her options, made sure she wasn’t being pressured, abused, or felt like she had no other choice. She says, 'One of the things the protestors say is that they’re there to inform [women] of all their other options. I think it’s really patronising to the healthcare workers, because they go through every option with every single person who enters that clinic.'

Emily, a midwife at a MSI Reproductive Choices (formerly Marie Stopes) abortion clinic in Bristol, has colleagues who have been accused of being ‘murderers’ and asked how they sleep at night. A routine part of her day is to phone patients ahead of their appointments and warn them when protestors are on site.

'[We] let them know what to expect, so things aren’t a shock to them. But imagine receiving a phone call before your appointment, which you may already be having a whole host of emotions about,' she says. 'To tell you that there’s somebody outside the clinic who is displaying images that are distressing, that may have a bodycam, that may be quite vocal. It’s just really sad.'

But over the last few years, pro-choice activists and policy makers have mobilised in turn. Groups like Sister Supporter – which organises counter-protests and whose members accompany women to their appointments – and campaigns including ‘Back Off’ launched by BPAS, have spent years compiling patient testimonies to depict the extent of the harassment.

Lobbyists and MPs are pushing for national Safe Access Zones, or buffer zones, (with no anti-abortion protests within 150 metres of an abortion clinic) to ensure safety and privacy for women trying to access health services. So far, only 3 constituencies across the U.K. have implemented a buffer zone.

For the countless others, there is an ongoing battle over the pavement outside their very doors. One that has little to do with abortions, themselves. It questions instead: who, here, has the right of way?

The Protestors

Across the West, anti-abortion sentiment is mounting. In 2019, thousands of people attended a pro-life march in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Last year, at the peak of the pandemic, Poland slinked through a near-total abortion ban. In the latest blow to Roe v Wade - America’s 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalised abortions nationwide - Texas joined five other states in criminalising abortions as early as six weeks.

'There was a really bad time for anti-abortion activism back in the 90s. There were lots of arrests, and then things calmed down. But now, things have picked up again,' says Dr. Lowe.

'It’s not necessarily that [the protestors] are getting money from America now,' adds Clarke, 'but they are getting advice on how best to harass people outside clinics, how to engage [with women seeking terminations], how to stop them. The messages are the same. You see leaflets about abortion procedures or drugs that have never been used in this country, which have clearly come from Facebook. '

For a while now, Dr Lowe and her colleague, have been carrying out a long-term ethnographic study into abortion rights in public spaces. According to her findings, in England, Scotland, and Wales, about 80 per cent of these protestors are Catholic, and 10 to 15 per cent are Evangelicals.

.

'The people who stand outside abortion clinics, they’re bearing witness. They're literally standing there to acknowledge the evil as they see it, that happens within the site, so they're [there] specifically to draw attention to the clinic,' Dr Lowe says. 'It’s more than just praying because they could pray anywhere. They choose to pray there.'

Sheridan, a retiree and devout Christian from Brighton, joined the 40 Days for Life campaign a year ago. He had always held pro-life views, but the organisation’s message, to lead with prayer, was what drew him. Every week this month, with a handful of others, he travels down to the MSI Reproductive Choices clinic on Preston Road to stand vigil and pray.

Most of the conversations with strangers are emotionally charged. Their initial signs for this season’s campaign, Pray to End Abortion, provoked an outpouring of contempt from passers-by, so Sheridan had them replaced. Now, they read: We Are Here to Help You.

'People are carrying a lot of pain. And we don’t wish to add to that, we don’t wish to open wounds, to cause wounds,' Sheridan says. 'There is an awful lot of pain around [abortion], a lot of heartache. And that’s borne by most people who stop and talk to me who say, ‘don’t you understand the pain?’ or quite often, ‘you can’t understand the pain’. It’s not really a good starting point for a conversation. That's something I feel I have to work on, because I don't think that prayer is a negative thing. For people who are hurting and struggling, prayer should be a positive thing.'

Alice isn’t religious, but there’s something about prayer that has always beguiled her. Perhaps it’s the synchronised sway of the bodies, or the sweeping hum of communion. She is entranced by passionate people. She likes to get lost in their fervour. But the use of prayer outside Chalmers felt unnerving. A thin, shimmering veil concealing a bid for control.

She tells me, 'I just find it to be sinister. It’s like, praying, singing hymns, that has to be peaceful, right? But obviously, we know that’s not the case in this context: you're outside of a clinic where you don't know the mental state of everyone going in, plus you're holding really aggressive signs. It feels like gaslighting. I think that was the one thing I replayed the most. The eeriness of that contrast.'

When approached with a request for a comment, another 40 Days for Life representative insisted that, 'before the interview begins, I would ask that you pray with me – all you have to do is sit in respectful silence and listen to the prayer, as I ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit and that God would soften your heart and open your mind to Him and the pro-life message.'

Dr Lowe is careful to note that these protestors are not representative of wider religious communities. 'The vast majority of people of Christian faith,' she says, 'do not think people should be outside clinics.' These protestors signify an extreme, but their religious reasoning provides a barbed-wire fence of protection.

'They genuinely believe that they’re following what their faith has told them to do. It is a form of religious practice, in a way, and so they can’t see that what they do might be harmful,' she goes on. 'Not to put too fine a point on it, but if there was a group of Muslim men outside an abortion clinic, they would not be there for very long. It’s because Christianity gets a pass, right? Christianity always gets a pass in this country.'

Sheridan is an earnest, soft-spoken man. He chooses his words carefully and admits when finding the right ones proves difficult. He is hopeful the women can see through the nasty caricatures he says are peddled about people like him. He wants, desperately, to reassure them that they are safe. He cannot believe that what he’s doing could be seen as harassment.

'Women are a vital part of society. They have so much to contribute, and bringing a new life is a beautiful thing. I don't want to go around condemning them,' Sheridan says.

He goes on, 'One of the wonderful things which Jesus says is, ‘I didn't come into the world to condemn you for not accepting what I say, I came into the world to save you.’ OK, I'm not a Messiah, or anything. Following the footsteps of my Messiah, I'm in no position to condemn anyone. And getting that across is very difficult.'

The Battle

APublic Spaces Protection Order (PSPO), designed for local councils to deal with anti-social behaviour, imposes policed restrictions on public spaces. In 2018, Ealing became the first constituency to grant a PSPO to their local abortion clinic, to push back the deluge of protestors outside. This year, at the three-year mark, they renewed it, citing the restrictions as ‘lawful, necessary and proportionate’.

Dr Rupa Huq, Labour MP for Ealing, tells ELLE U.K., 'Ealing council did this as a last resort after 23 years of protests. It was an imaginative use of a local by law designed for ASBO type issues. It took many hours of officer time and has been defended successfully in higher courts, but it is a costly process. National legislation is urgently needed for what is a national problem.'

Richmond and Manchester have followed suit. There is also international precedent – in Canada, Australia and some US states, buffer zones already exist. But Britain has shirked national action to the issue before, with the Home Office refusing to ban protests outside abortion clinics in 2018.

After the lobbying efforts of pro-choice group Back Off Scotland, Edinburgh council committed to enforce buffer zones in February – but have been stagnant since. Adam McVey, SNP Councillor for Leith says he 'will continue to work with the Scottish Government…to progress effective action to protect women across Scotland, regardless of where medical facilities are.'

Meanwhile, a Scottish Government spokesperson has said, 'Our Programme for Government already includes a commitment to support any local authority who wishes to use bye-laws to establish buffer zones – and we would invite them to do so as the swiftest way to have such zones enacted.'

It is a stalemate, in which the local and national authorities are passing the buck amongst themselves.

But PSPOs are not a sustainable solution, either. Polly Jackman is a lawyer for The Good Law Project and campaigner for Sister Supporter, points out, 'PSPOs are only in force for three years before they have to be renewed. They also put the onus on individual councils, already cash-stretched, to find solutions for the harassment of abortion clinics, when the responsibility should be with central government.'

'They also create a post-code lottery. Those accessing abortion care in Ealing, Manchester and Richmond are protected, those accessing care in the rest of the United Kingdom are not. That is hugely unfair. There is evidence that harassment is increasing, and so this problem is only getting worse. Our government, unfortunately, has declined to help,' she says.

A Home Office spokesperson has told us: 'It is completely unacceptable that anyone should feel harassed or intimidated. The police and local authorities have powers to restrict harmful protests and we expect them to take action in such cases. We recognise the importance of this matter and keep it under review.'

A Clash of Freedoms?

Sarah Olney, Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Park, who tabled a Buffer Zone Bill in Parliament last year, says, 'If people want to challenge the legal right [to abortion], they're perfectly entitled to, but it's not the people who are seeking an abortion today who could do anything about that. They're not the right people to be targeting. And it is wrong to make them feel guilty or ashamed about the choice that they've made. It is wrong, to harass them, to intimidate them.'

.

To Sheridan, Safe Access Zones are an imposition on democratic freedoms. 'Simply saying we're going to impose a buffer zone is probably a bit much, because you're immediately imposing on someone else's freedoms when you do that,' he says. 'I think protecting the freedoms of the women is a priority. But I don't think that that necessarily leads to buffer zones.'

Amid revitalised discourse around violence against women and girls, the battle for territory outside abortion clinics reveals the feeble extent to which our society believes women. The clash is riddled with quiet doubt. Sustained national indecision asks: can these women, victims of this so-called harassment, be trusted when they testify in droves that it is traumatic? Can they decide, in fact, that it is harassment after all? Does it matter yet, when it’s only harassment – a key precursor to violence – and not legally, abuse? Armed with this suspicion, we can continue to look away.

Soon after the buffer zone came into force at a MSI Reproductive Choices clinic in Manchester, the protestors started disappearing entirely. Shelley Doherty, front of house assistant there, experienced almost five years of protestors hurling abuse. She talks of plastic foetuses displayed on tables, of pro-life mothers breastfeeding their babies outside.

'It was a horrible time – 30 years,' Doherty says. She and her colleagues had to collect written statements from women who had faced harassment as part of the evidence pack. The entire process took a year. 'We had to basically prove that clients were being harassed, which was bloody horrible. As women, we have got to consistently explain ourselves, just to access health care with privacy and dignity.'

But once the order finally landed, the protestors vanished. 'We got the order, and they went. That was it. It’s an absolute weight off. And I feel really proud to be part of that; part of this movement,' Doherty says. 'I just want it to happen for the rest of the country.'

Sister Supporter is a pro-choice, anti-harassment organisation  that campaigns for buffer zones around abortion clinics,  in order to protect people accessing clinics from harassment and intimidation. On this episode, Polly talks to us about what goes on outside of abortion clinics in the United Kingdom, why buffer zones are important, and the work that Sister Supporter is doing. 

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3iQf4Hn8hhIPeyvpBY41CF

THE DAY THAT IRELAND VOTED SO OVERWHELMINGLY TO REPEAL THE 8TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION WAS, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW IF YOU ARE READING THIS, A PROFOUNDLY MOVING DAY. THE BELIEF THAT WOMEN* SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE WHAT HAPPENS TO THEIR OWN BODIES HAS RARELY BEEN SO CLEARLY AND KEENLY FELT, AND FOR THOSE INVOLVED IN THE CAMPAIGN, IT WAS A TRULY JOYFUL EXPERIENCE.

A year on, the legislation that has been enshrined into Irish law is perhaps not everything we had hoped for, but it is a wildly improved situation for many of the women of Ireland. 

Harassment and intimidation outside abortion clinics occurs in many countries. I have witnessed first hand, on many, many occasions, the tactics used outside clinics in London. I have seen anti-choicers call service-users “Mum” and “murderer”, advise them that they are in the wrong place for the clinic (leading them to miss their appointment), physically block the clinic entrance, display graphic photos of foetuses, and hand out leaflets containing appalling misinformation - as if the presence of a large group of people outside of an abortion clinic watching you go in while singing hymns and chanting prayers wasn’t intimidation enough. 

Of course, the fear is that these tactics deter women from accessing healthcare when they need it, and will intimidate clinic staff members into leaving their jobs. In particular in Ireland, where these facilities are only just coming into being, the difficulties clinic staff can face when having to run the gauntlet of protestors might be enough to put them off their jobs entirely.

In the UK, councils are able to implement buffer zones outside clinics on a case-by-case basis, by using their powers to enforce Public Space Protection Orders. In Ealing, the first place in the UK to have a buffer zone, the harm-reduction value has been incredible. The Manager of the Ealing Clinic has said that, since the implementation of the Public Space Protection Order, the number of women who describe their harassment in the Clinic incident book has fallen from approximately 12 per week to zero. Anti-choicers are confined to a designated area, some way away from the Clinic, and cannot approach service-users or staff within a 100m radius of the Clinic. The campaign for national legislation is ongoing, since the Home Secretary’s, Sajid Javid’s, decision that creating a law to protect the thousands of women affected by anti-choicers outside hospitals and clinics would not be a “proportionate response”. 

Now that legal abortion is being rolled out in Ireland, there is an opportunity to ensure that women are supported throughout the process of deciding whether or not to have a termination. Every woman should have the right to make this decision for themselves and their families, free from interference and in a neutral environment.

What you can do:

In Ireland:

Join the Abortion Rights Campaign (https://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/)

If you witness anti-choice intimidation or harassment anywhere, try to limit direct engagement with those involved. There are anecdotal reports of anti-choice groups wearing body cameras and deliberately trying to provoke reactions. Do not engage as doing so may escalate the situation and expose you to allegations or legal action. Instead, call the local Garda station and report the behaviour. Under the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, you can contact the Gardaí to report any of the following:

Threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour

Display of threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene material

Willful obstruction of the free passage of people or vehicles in public spaces

Email your TD (https://www.whoismytd.com/) and tell them you want national legislation for buffer zones;

Email the Minister for Justice (charles.flanagan@oir.ie) and tell him you want national legislation for buffer zones;

Email the Minister for Health (simon.harris@oir.ie) and tell him you want national legislation for buffer zones

In the United Kingdom: 

Tell your MP (https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/), the Home Office (public.enquiries@homeoffice.gov.uk), the Secretary of State for Health (matt.hancock.mp@parliament.uk), and the Woman and the Minister for Women and Equalities (penny.mordaunt.mp@parliament.uk) that you want national legislation for buffer zones in the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. 

Support the BPAS Back-Off Campaign https://back-off.org/.

Join Alliance for Choice in Northern Ireland - http://www.alliance4choice.com/

Join SisterSupporter in GB - www.sistersupporter.co.uk

If you witness anti-choice intimidation or harassment, call 101 and report it, and let Sister Supporter know.

*including Trans and non binary people

This article first appeared in Grazia on 25 May 2019

Between 2006 and 2016, more than 15 women were arrested in relation to illegal abortion. In April 2016, a 21-year old woman was given a 3-month suspended sentence after purchasing abortion pills online. In another case, the mother of a 15-year old who became pregnant after statutory rape was prosecuted for buying abortion pills for her daughter.

This isn’t happening in Alabama – this wouldn’t happen in Alabama, because the State’s new, draconian abortion laws don’t actually criminalise women seeking an abortion. This is happening just 12 miles over the sea from mainland UK, in Northern Ireland.

Over the last few weeks there has, rightly, been a huge outcry around the world about a series of restrictive and terrifying new laws being passed in states across America, including in Alabama, where the new law means women would be denied abortions even in cases of rape and incest, and in almost all situations where the women’s life is at serious risk or the foetus as a lethal anomaly. Doctors in the state face life imprisonment for performing this procedure.

Women’s rights activists, celebrities, politicians, and anyone with an ounce of sense have been decrying this new law. As well they should, it will cause huge amounts of harm to countless women. But why then, has the world remains strangely silent on behalf of the women of Northern Ireland, who have faced even stricter laws for 158 years?

Abortion in Northern Ireland is governed by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. A law passed when Queen Victoria was on the throne, and before women could vote, says that women in Northern Ireland cannot have abortions in any circumstance other than when the risk of continuing with the pregnancy poses a “serious and long-term” risk. There are no exceptions that allow a pregnancy to be terminated on the grounds that the foetus is incompatible with life, or that conception was as a result of sexual abuse.

The Alabama law does not criminalise women for having abortions. The Northern Ireland law does. For women in NI, the threat of prosecution for having an abortion is not theoretical, it is very, very real.

The criminalisation of abortion and the fear of arrest places women in Northern Ireland experiencing an unwanted pregnancy in an impossible situation. They are usually faced with either continuing the pregnancy and having an unwanted child, travelling to England for an abortion, or buying pills illegally and risking prosecution. Those for whom none of these is a possibility are forced to turn to less safe ways to try to terminate. Women are known to have taken extreme measures, including by "ingesting chemicals, by overdosing on medications, by drinking excessively, by literally throwing themselves down stairs to try and induce miscarriage.”

And what of the women who are able to make it over to mainland UK for an abortion - the 'lucky ones'? I have had women from Northern Ireland come to stay with me the night before their terminations because they cannot afford a hotel room. I do my best to make them feel at home, and they have all been polite, and heartbreakingly grateful for a night in my flat and a lift to the clinic in the morning. It should not be this way. These women should not have to rely on the kindness of strangers. They should be entitled to exert their rights to make the best decision for themselves and their family. They should be entitled, like more women in England, to be able to drive to an appointment at a clinic about 20 minutes away. They should be entitled to have a friend take them there, wait with them, speak to the doctors and nurses for them, and come home with them, ready to spend the evening sitting on the sofa watching trashy films, feeding them chocolate, and generally taking care of them.

Doctors in both Alabama and Northern Ireland would face life imprisonment for performing an abortion. Far more insidiously, in Northern Ireland, medics are also under a duty to report women who have had abortions to the police. This, understandably, makes many women scared to seek medical help when they need it.

But the crucial thing is, there is something we can all do something about the situation in Northern Ireland. Apart from showing your support to the women of America, there’s little we can do in the UK to change the law there. But there are things you can do to influence the situation in Northern Ireland. Email your MP and tell them how disgusted you are that the law in Northern Ireland criminalises women and prevents them from accessing the health care they would receive in any other part of the United Kingdom, and support and get involved with Alliance for Choice, Abortion Support Network and London-Irish Abortion Rights Campaign.

An open letter to The Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP, sent on 2 January 2017.

We are writing in support of the recent announcement that you will be conducting a review into the behaviour of anti-choice campaigners outside English and Welsh abortion clinics, and whether further police and civil powers are needed to prevent the harassment and intimidation that has been occurring.

We fully agree with your statement that “the decision to have an abortion is already an incredibly personal one, without women being further pressured by aggressive protesters.”

The evidence collected by organisations like BPAS, Marie Stopes and Sister Supporter, shows that service-users accessing abortion clinics are frequently subject to a range of harassing and intimidatory actions with the aim of preventing them from accessing legal healthcare. Anti-choice activists cause women distress and harm, in a situation when many are already feeling vulnerable and anxious.

We are grateful that, following moves by Councils in Ealing, Southwark and Birmingham to implement Public Space Protection Orders around specific abortion clinics in borough, national legislation will be considered in England and Wales.

However, we write to ensure that the situation of service-users in Northern Ireland is not forgotten.  

For almost 30 years the Family Planning Association (FPA)  has provided the only non-directive pregnancy choices counselling service in Northern Ireland. FPA counsellors discuss abortion as a choice with women, they do not perform abortions.  The FPA office in Belfast has been picketed on a daily basis for the past 20 years.

Individuals assemble around the entrance to the building, attempt to start unsolicited conversations with women on their reasons for entering, give misleading leaflets, display graphic images, hold prayer vigils, bless the entrance with holy water and write chalk messages on the pavement outside, such as, ‘FPA, how many kids have you killed today?’  They follow women and their families as they leave the building and use emotive and coercive language to dissuade visitors from medical treatment, under the assumption that any woman entering or leaving the building is pregnant and considering an abortion.

This behaviour impacts negatively on women and their families and influences their decision to access, or not access, services. In the waiting room in the FPA office there is a comment book in which individuals can record their thoughts or mention an incident that has occurred. Below are extracts from this book:

“I came to the centre with my mum for some advice and help regarding a crisis pregnancy and was greeted by an anti-abortion protester with pictures. They stood at the door and I couldn’t get past her to get in. She told me that the picture she was holding was what my baby looked like in my womb. I was very upset by the incident. They have no right to do this, and I think something should be done about this.”

“Leaving the building with my sister, mother and uncle at approximately 12.30pm. Sister has been attending for counselling sessions for previous few weeks (which are really helping her)! Accosted outside door by red haired woman. Told her we didn’t need her advice. She told me, rudely, that she wasn’t speaking to me, she wanted to speak to my sister. I told her we’d phone her if we wanted her advice. She proceeded to follow us up the street, trying to push her leaflets on us. In the meantime the man who was with her followed our uncle shouting about how this would be his grandchild! Very intimidating, pure harassment and the first week it happened my sister didn’t want to come back. Something needs to be done to remove these people.”

“My daughter, 15 years old, was approached by a blonde haired woman and asked where she was going. I told her we were capable of making an educated choice. She then began a verbal tirade with comments such as “this is your grandchild” and “what if your daughter dies during an abortion?” Both my husband and I told her to stop but she continued and tried to block the doorway entrance. In our opinion this is harassment and will cause emotional and mental strain on any woman and their partner/family attending the clinic.”

In 2015 a protester was convicted for assaulting an FPA employee, in the belief that the employee was a pregnant woman leaving a counselling session. Despite the conviction, this individual continues to stand outside the FPA office without sanction. FPA has asked several times for a meeting between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the anti-abortion demonstrators, but on each occasion they refused to attend.

Recently Marie Stopes UK took the decision to close their clinic in Belfast. During the five years in which it operated clients and staff were subjected to harassment and intimidation. At least four anti-choice activists have been arrested for harassment.

Since 2014, Marie Stopes felt compelled to ensure that two escorts, one wearing a body camera, the other holding a walkie-talkie with an emergency button that was linked to the clinic, were always available to service-users. One would stay with the woman and the other would act as a buffer between her and the protesters, making it clear that they did not want any leaflets, conversation or interaction with them. The MLA for South Belfast, Clare Bailey, who worked as an escort, said:

“I had clients who were crying, who were terrified because protesters were using phones to record them, threatening to upload them to social media, threatening to report them to the police.  I had one client who ran into oncoming traffic in the city centre to try to get away from them.

In my time as a Marie Stopes escort I have been spat at, splashed with holy water, had my hair pulled, I’ve been threatened, abused, intimidated, harassed, all sorts of behaviour.”

In April 2017, the members of Belfast City Council passed a resolution condemning “all harassment and intimidation taking place outside facilities that offer reproductive healthcare, including attempts to physically block access to facilities, verbal intimidation, and the filming and recording of staff and clients entering and leaving the building.”  Fifty councillors voted in favour, three abstained, and none voted against.  This motion shows that harassment is occurring, and that even pro-life party members (of the DUP) condemn the anti-choice activists.

The human rights of women in Northern Ireland need protecting in the same way as the human rights of women in England and Wales.  The devolved government in Northern Ireland has been on hold since the collapse of the Assembly in January. Therefore, the intervention of Westminster is the only way for service-users in Northern Ireland seeking information and counselling or making individual reproductive choices to be offered the same protection as their counterparts in the rest of the UK.

Before the Assembly shutdown, Clare Bailey, MLA for South Belfast, had been working on a Private Members Bill to address the harassment of service-users in Northern Ireland. Because there is no Executive in place, she has had to place this initiative on hold.  However, she had carried out the first stage of a public consultation, with approximately 600 replies that overwhelmingly supported some form of buffer zone, and is happy to share the results if it would be of any assistance.

Members of the FPA, Alliance for Choice, and the London-Irish Abortion Rights Campaign, would welcome a meeting with you to discuss including Northern Ireland in your review, or what other steps could be taken to ensure that women in Northern Ireland are protected from harassing and threatening behaviour.  

We look forward to hearing from you.

This week a significant case is being heard in the Supreme Court in London, the highest court in the UK. The case concerns abortion laws in Northern Ireland.

What is the Supreme Court hearing about?

In England and Wales, the Abortion Act 1967 allows women to obtain abortions legally. The Abortion Act 1967 does not extend to Northern Ireland: abortion is only legal there if a woman’s life is at risk, or if there is a permanent or long-term risk to her mental or physical health. Abortion is otherwise illegal under the criminal law. The punishment is life imprisonment for anyone who unlawfully procures or performs a termination.

Importantly, there are no exceptions to the abortion ban where the pregnancy involves: (i) serious foetal malformation, including a fatal foetal abnormality; (ii) where the pregnancy is a consequence of rape; or (iii) where the pregnancy is a consequence of incest.  

The Supreme Court hearing is about whether or not the criminalisation of abortion in these three specific circumstances is compatible with human rights law, in particular with the following articles of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR):-

• Article 3 (the prohibition on torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment);

• Article 8 (the right to respect for one’s private and family life); and

• Article 14 (the right to freedom from discrimination).

When and where is the case being heard?

The case is being heard in the Supreme Court in London on 24th, 25th and 26th October. The case is called In the Matter Of The Law On Termination Of Pregnancy In Northern Ireland.

The address is The Supreme Court, Parliament Square, Little George St, Westminster, London, SW1P 3BD. The case will be heard in Court 1.

The judges hearing the case are: Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones.

Who are the parties to the case?

The case is being brought by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC). The other parties to the case are the Department of Justice and the Attorney General of Northern Ireland.

In addition, a number of interested organisations have been granted permission to ‘intervene’ in the case, which means that they have been allowed to let the Supreme Court know what they think about the issues. Some of the interveners are providing written submissions, and some are also making oral submissions in court.

The interveners in this case include: Humanists UK, Christian Action and Research in Education (CARE), Family Planning Association, British Pregnancy Advisory Services, Abortion Support Network, Royal College of Midwives, United Nations Human Rights Council, Bishops of the Roman Catholic Diocese in Northern Ireland and Amnesty International.

How did this case get to the Supreme Court?

In November 2015 the High Court in Belfast decided that failure to provide an exception for fatal foetal abnormalities at any time during pregnancy and in cases where the pregnancy is a consequence of rape or incest up to 24 weeks gestation breaches Article 8 ECHR, but not Articles 3 or 14 ECHR.

In December 2015 the High Court in Belfast granted a declaration of incompatibility with Article 8 ECHR under the Human Rights Act 1998. This is a declaration that the particular laws in Northern Ireland that govern abortion are not compatible with that article of the ECHR (see more on what this means in practical terms below).

In June 2017, the Court of Appeal in Belfast overturned the High Court’s ruling, finding that there was no incompatibility with any human rights law on the issues that it was asked to consider. The NIHRC was given permission to appeal this decision to the UK Supreme Court.  

Why is this case important?

The law governing abortion in Northern Ireland is one of the most restrictive in the European Union and the Council of Europe. The maximum criminal penalty imposed – life imprisonment for both the woman undergoing the abortion and the individual who assists her – is the harshest in Europe and among the harshest in the world.

Women in Northern Ireland need and want abortions every day, as they do elsewhere in the world. Approximately two women per day travel from Northern Ireland to England for a termination, at great emotional and (until June 2017) financial cost . The cost, economic, emotional and otherwise, of being forced to travel for an abortion can be immense. An unknown number of women risk (or face) prosecution for taking matters into their own hands by ordering illegal abortion pills online and self-aborting at home. Some women take even more desperate and unsafe measures to end an unwanted pregnancy.  

The threat of criminal prosecution for abortion-related offences is not theoretical. Women and girls in Northern Ireland have been arrested for buying abortion pills. Between 2010 and 2017, there have been 9 prosecutions under the OAPA or for alternative offences.  

In 2016, a 21-year old woman was given a 3-month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months, after pleading guilty to purchasing abortion pills online in order to induce an abortion. 

Could the Supreme Court find that Northern Ireland laws breach human rights?

If the Supreme Court disagrees with the Court of Appeal that the laws in Northern Ireland are not incompatible with the ECHR, it could make a declaration of incompatibility with one or more of the three articles of the ECHR that it is being asked to consider (Article 3, 8 and 14 ECHR).

What is the effect of a declaration of incompatibility?

A declaration of incompatibility has no direct legal effect. It would be up to the UK parliament to legislate to change the law to ensure it is compatible with the ECHR. In other words, it would become a political matter.

Is abortion not a matter that is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly?

This case concerns abortion in the light of human rights law standards. Human rights in Northern Ireland are guaranteed under certain international treaties and conventions, including the ECHR. Because Northern Ireland is part of the UK, it is the UK that is the state body under those treaties.

Rights under the ECHR are guaranteed to the citizens of Northern Ireland under the Good Friday Agreement.  

Is Northern Ireland law not already a breach of human rights?

The law in Northern Ireland has been repeatedly criticised by international human rights bodies.  For example, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Committee has repeatedly expressed concern that abortion continues to be illegal in Northern Ireland with limited exceptions and that this is having harmful consequences for women’s health. It has called on the UK to conduct a public consultation in Northern Ireland on the abortion law.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child issued a report on the United Kingdom on 9 June 2016. It called on the UK Government to: decriminalise abortion in Northern Ireland in all circumstances and to review legislation with a view to ensuring girls’ access to safe abortion and post-abortion care services.

You can watch the hearing live by clicking on this link: https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

This article was written by Polly Barklem and Barbara Davidson. It was first published on the London Irish Abortion Rights Campaign website: https://londonirisharc.com/

I have recently been attending Anti-Vigils outside Ealing Marie Stopes Clinic with the grass roots group SisterSupporter.

SisterSupporter has been operating since November 2015, in response to the number of individuals from the Helpers of God’s Precious Infants, and international anti-choice group, gathering outside the Marie Stopes clinic in Ealing, with the aim of preventing women from accessing safe and lawful abortions.

The HoGPI set up camp from around 8am, directly in front of the Clinic, so that they can been seen and heard at all times. They proceed to pray together, sing hymns, show factually inaccurate pictures of aborted foetuses, and try to prevent women from going into the Clinic.

The HoGPI usually stay outside the Clinic until about 12pm, but due to the 40 Days of Life Campaign they run throughout Lent, they have recently increased the length of their protests.

This past Saturday, a man who had gone with his partner to the Clinic approached SisterSupporter and told us that his partner was in tears, and would not leave the Clinic while the HoGPI were outside.  He was understandably incredibly distressed and angry that his partner had been so upset by the actions of this group.  Another man told me that his partner had been approached by the HoGPI in the car park, which had really shaken her.   He said that she had made a hard decision in seeking an abortion – as so often these decisions are – and that being harassed for her decision at the last minute was completely unacceptable.

The HoGPI say that they are “only praying”, and that they “care about women”.  If they are only praying, why are they doing so directly outside the Clinic?  And if they care about women, why are they causing such unnecessary distress and pain?  The HoGPI display an appalling lack of compassion and a hatred of women that is almost unbelievable.

On the other hand, the love, respect and compassion shown by the Sister Supporters is beautiful.  A group of 30 or so women and men, wearing fluorescent pink vests and carrying signs with messages of love, forming a blockade to shield service-users from the bile of the HoGPI (and usually dancing to a strong pro-choice playlist) is truly a sight to behold.

If you are able to travel to Ealing any Saturday during Lent, please come to 87 Mattock Lane, W5 5BJ to show that you support your sisters.

Women seeking abortions at any Clinic should have the right to exercise their decision without harassment from anyone, and that is why we must stand together.

The Republican Administration in the United States has reinstated the Global Gag Rule.

First implemented by Ronald Reagan in 1984, the Rule prevented US foreign aid from going to any nongovernmental organization (NGO) that provided information on abortion. Not just NGOs that provided abortions, but those that mentioned it as an option.

The Rule was repealed by Clinton, reinstated by Bush and repealed by Obama.

Trump’s version has  expanded the original Rule.  It will apply to 15 times more funding than normal because it applies to all global health funding, not just funding specifically earmarked for family planning funding.

In effect, this bans U.S.-funded groups around the world from providing information on not only abortion, but also contraception, HIV prevention and treatment services, maternal health care, and Zika virus prevention, among other things.

This will have devastating effects on the health of women and girls around the globe.  Marie Stopes International (just one international organisation that will be affected) estimates that without alternative funding, the loss of its services alone will cause 6.5 million unintended pregnancies, 2.2 million abortions, 2.1 million unsafe abortions, and 21,700 maternal deaths just in Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2020.

Eight countries have joined together to create an initiative to raise millions of dollars to replace shortfalls caused by Trump’s ban. A conference would be held on March 2 in Brussels to kick-start the funding initiative.  I have started a petition to encourage the government of the UK to support women’s rights by joining the initiative.

Please sign here and share to help spread the word:

https://www.change.org/p/priti-patel-uk-to-counter-trump-s-anti-abortion-global-gag-rule?recruiter=26915657&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

In Belfast on 4 April 2016, a 21-year old woman was given a 3-month suspended sentence after pleading guilty to having an abortion, after purchasing the abortion pills Mifepristone and Misoprostol online.

The court heard that the woman experienced an unwanted pregnancy when she was 19. She tried to save up enough money to travel to England to have an abortion, but could not afford it. She bought abortion pills online and performed a DIY abortion at home. Her housemates reported her to the police.

In recent months a second Northern Irish woman has been arrested and charged after helping her daughter buy abortion pills online.

Both of these women were charged under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which criminalises abortion unless, following a 2001 legal challenge calling for clarification of the law, “the continuance of the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, or would adversely affect her mental or long term physical health’…An ‘adverse effect’ needed to be ‘real and serious’ and ‘permanent or long term’.”[1]

This results in a virtual ban on abortion, especially since, due to the unclear guidelines provided to the medical profession in Northern Ireland, many medics err on the side of caution and do not provide assistance or advice to women with unwanted pregnancies, worrying that they may commit a crime if they do so.

Northern Irish women therefore do not have access to safe and legal abortions except in the extraordinary circumstances described above. If they experience an unwanted pregnancy, they are left with the following options:

1. continue with that pregnancy, or

2. seek to terminate that pregnancy, either

   1. illegally, or

   2. by travelling to a jurisdiction where they can terminate legally.

Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) defines torture as

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining … punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Looking, in turn, at each element of this definition, it is arguable that the current abortion laws in Northern Ireland constitute torture.

Severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental

While the now relative ease of obtaining the ‘abortion pill’ from the internet has made ‘home abortions’ in Northern Ireland easier and safer, it is illegal to buy and to ingest the pill. It seems clear that, for many women, breaking the law by ordering these pills over the internet is bound to cause severe suffering. Not least, the fact that recently two Northern Irish women have been arrested for buying abortion pills over the internet is bound to cause fear, worry, and mental anguish to any women attempting to do the same. As Breedagh Hughes, director for Northern Ireland at the Royal College of Midwives, said: “I don’t want to see women dying from septic haemorrhages because they’ve been too scared to get medical attention. This case is going to have a huge impact for women who are on their own and pregnant, particularly if they take these pills and want medical help.”[3]

If a woman seeks an abortion when she is more than 10 weeks pregnant, medical abortions are not advised (abortions carried out using Mifepristone and Misoprostol are known as “medical abortions” as opposed to “surgical abortions”). Attempting a medical abortion at this stage is more likely to result in complications – for which, if the woman seeks medical help, the doctors and nurses who treat her have a legal obligation to report her to the police.

Women further into their unwanted pregnancy therefore often need to travel to another jurisdiction to procure a surgical abortion. This puts a further spin on the problem. The poorest experience severe suffering trying to find the money to travel to England, for accommodation and for the procedure itself (especially in the later stages, when private abortions can cost between £850 – £2,000).[4] The act of having to go through this process, to organize this journey and book the procedure, even if you have the money and especially if you do not, can amount to severe suffering.

The other option for women in Northern Ireland who wish to have a termination is simply not to. They can go through with the unwanted pregnancy. Carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth are far more dangerous than having an abortion (as well as severely painful), and can therefore result in harmful physical health consequences,[5] not to mention the harmful mental suffering caused by carrying an unwanted pregnancy.

It therefore seems that severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, will very often be experienced by Northern Irish women seeking terminations.

Intentionally inflicted

Intention has been broadly interpreted by the UN Committee Against Torture as including the reasonable foreseeability of pain and suffering.[6]

The law in Northern Irish clearly causes women severe pain and suffering, and therefore it would be madness to argue that the Northern Irish government cannot reasonably forsee that maintaining the same laws will result in the same consequences for women

Therefore, the intention requirement is undoubtedly met.

For the purpose of punishment, coercion, intimidation or for any reason based on discrimination

First, it is arguable that restrictive abortion laws are maintained as a punishment for women for having sex.  This is a topic for a future blog post (or whole book), but the often-used argument that “I agree with abortion only where the women has been raped” is logically inconsistent. Why does the fetus have rights overriding that of the mother only where it has been conceived during a rape? Surely, it either has an inalienable right to life, or it does not, however conceived.  This logical difficulty perhaps betrays the truth: that women who ‘get themselves knocked up’ do not deserve to control their bodies, and they must continue their punishment so that they ‘learn their lesson’.  Women who have not entered into consensual sex are deemed innocent, and worthy of choice. An interesting article exploring this further can be found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/12159388/Abortion-opponents-dont-really-think-its-murder.-They-just-want-to-judge-women.html.

Second, it is clear that restrictive abortion laws are discriminatory against women. In its General Recommendation on Women and Health, the CEDAW Committee states that “it is discriminatory for a State party to refuse to provide legally for the performance of certain reproductive health services for women.”[9]

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) defines discrimination as including both direct and indirect discrimination. Indirect discrimination occurs when a law operates in a way that disadvantages a particular group (women). Restrictions on abortion are therefore clearly capable of constituting indirect discrimination, as only women can become pregnant.

Public official/official capacity

The police who recently arrested the two women, and the judiciary that allowed them to be charged and convicted, are public officials.

Westminster is also complicit. As the state party to the CAT, the Westminster government has responsibility to take effective measures to prevent torture in any territory under its jurisdiction, and that includes Northern Ireland.

The lawful sanctions clause

The final sentence of article 1 of CAT states that torture ‘does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanction’. It does not explain whether ‘lawful sanctions’ refer to domestic or international law.

However, an interpretation that the clause excludes from the definition of torture sanctions under domestic law “… would allow States to engage in conduct that would ordinarily be deemed torture by legalizing such conduct under their domestic law”[10]. It would also lead to an inconsistency whereby States are permitted to engage in torture if their domestic law allows it, but are required to prevent ‘other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture’, without derogation (Article 16 of CAT does not contain an exemption for lawful Sanctions).

The drafting history of this clause suggests that the drafters were referring to international law.[11] This, together with inherent contradiction outlined above, leads to the deduction that lawful means ‘lawful’ under international law. Restrictions on abortion are neither ‘sanctions’ nor explicitly allowed under international law.

Conclusion

Accordingly, restrictions on abortion in Northern Ireland will frequently satisfy all elements of the article 1 definition of torture and do not fall within the ‘lawful sanctions clause’.

Women in Northern Ireland are deprived of autonomy, bodily integrity and dignity. This should be recognized as torture, and Stormont and Westminster must live up to their obligations under the CAT, and bring the law in line with international human rights standards.

[1] FAMILY LAW PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN IRELAND V MINISTER OF HEALTH, SOCIAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC SAFETY [2003] NIQB 48

[2] ‘ABORTION STATISTICS, ENGLAND AND WALES: 2014, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,’ <HTTPS://WWW.GOV.UK/GOVERNMENT/UPLOADS/SYSTEM/UPLOADS/ATTACHMENT_DATA/FILE/433437/2014_COMMENTARY__5_.PDF)>, P 21, ACCESSED 26 APRIL 2016

[3] AMELIA GENTLEMAN, ‘NORTHERN IRISH WOMEN ON ABORTION: ‘PEOPLE FEEL THEY CAN’T TRUST ANYONE’ THE GUARDIAN (8 APRIL 2016)

[4] ‘ABORTION FEES’ <HTTPS://WWW.MARIESTOPES.ORG.UK/WOMEN/ABORTION/SURGICAL-ABORTION-EXPLAINED/ABORTION-FEES> ACCESSED 28 APRIL 2016

[5] GENEVRA PITTMAN, ‘ABORTION SAFER THAN GIVING BIRTH: STUDY’, (REUTERS, 23 JANUARY 2012) , HTTP://WWW.REUTERS.COM/ARTICLE/US-ABORTION-IDUSTRE80M2BS20120123. ACCESSED 28 APRIL 2016

[6] COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE, GENERAL COMMENT 2: IMPLEMENTATION OR ARTICLE 2 BY STATES PARTIES, UN DOC CAT/C/GC/2 (24 JANUARY 2008)

[7] RHONDA COPELON, ‘RECOGNIZING THE EGREGIOUS IN THE EVERYDAY: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AS TORTURE’ (1994) 25 COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW 291, 325

[8] PROSECUTOR V KUNARAC KOVAC AND VUKOVIC CASE NO IT-96-23 AND IT-96-23/1-A (12 JUNE 2002) (JUDGMENT) [153]

[9] COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN, GENERAL RECOMMENDATION 24: WOMEN AND HEALTH, UN DOC A/54/38/REV.1 (5 FEBRUARY 1999) [11]

[10] RONLI SIFRIS, 2013, REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM, TORTURE AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS: CHALLENGING THE MASCULINISATION OF TORTURE, (ROUTLEDGE), 209

[11] IBID, P205 – 208

The Supreme Court, the UK’s highest court, has been told that women seeking abortions in Northern Ireland are treated as “second class citizens”.

A woman, known as A, who was 15 when she had to travel to the Manchester for an abortion at a total cost of about £900, is challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision that the extremely restrictive abortion law in Northern Ireland is not unlawful.

Unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, where women can seek abortions up to 24 weeks of pregnancy with the consent of two doctors, in Northern Ireland, criminal penalties are still imposed on women who seek abortions. Most recently, a young woman who bought abortion pills on the internet was given a 3-month suspended sentence. This prosecution was criticised by Amnesty International, who called the trial a “grotesque spectacle”.

Stephen Cragg QC, representing A, argued that the position of the Health Secretary, that abortion services should not be available to women in Northern Ireland, was “unreasonable and at odds with international norms requiring the UK as a whole to ensure access to safe abortion and post-abortion care services.”

“The law governing abortion in Northern Ireland is one of the most restrictive in both the European Union and [within] the Council of Europe,” he argued in a written submission. “The maximum criminal penalty imposed – life imprisonment for both the woman undergoing the abortion and for an individual who assists her – is the harshest in Europe and among the harshest in the world.”

Jason Coppel QC, for the Health Secretary, submitted that it was not irrational for the provision of non-emergency healthcare to be divided between the different countries of the UK according to the place of residence of the patient.

If there were any discrimination, he argued, then it was “plainly justified”.

Every year, an estimated 2,000 women travel from Northern Ireland to the mainland UK for expensive private abortions, appealing to charities such as the Abortion Support Network for financial help if they cannot afford it, or attempting illegal DIY abortions at home.

Reproductive rights organisations intervened in the case, and in making submissions on their behalf, Helen Mountfield QC argued that the 2006 National Health Services Act required the UK to “make universal non-discriminatory provision which supports women so as to enable them to exercise dignity and autonomy over their reproductive health, in a way which is practical and effective.

“Once a woman is within the country’s jurisdiction for the purposes of protecting her fundamental rights, then as a matter of international law, these must be protected on a non-discriminatory basis.”

We await the judgment of the Supreme Court.

In recent weeks a second Northern Irish woman faces jail after helping her daughter have a termination. She has been charged under an archaic law that has been in force since the 17th century, passed under the reign of Queen Victoria, and faces life in prison. This law, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, is still in force in the rest of the United Kingdom. The difference is that Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where the 1967 Abortion Act does not apply.

The 1967 Abortion Act provides a legal defence to those providing terminations (up to 24 weeks of pregnancy) in Britain. Women seeking an abortion are required to obtain the consent of two doctors who believe she meets one of four criteria.

In Belfast on 4 April, a 21-year old woman was given a 3-month suspended sentence after pleading guilty to having an abortion, after purchasing the abortion pills Mifepristone and Misoprostol online. These pills are commonly used by abortion providers in England, Scotland and Wales, to induce a miscarriage in the early stages of pregnancy.

The court heard that the woman experienced an unwanted pregnancy when she was 19. She tried to save up enough money to travel to England to have an abortion, but could not afford it. With no other choice she bought abortion pills online and performed a DIY abortion on herself at home. Her housemates found blood-stained items and foetal remains in a bin and reported her to the police.

Northern Ireland’s leading anti-abortion group Precious Life has asked for the sentence to be appealed so that it can be increased, calling the suspended sentence “very lenient”.

However, the prosecution has been criticised by human rights bodies including Amnesty International who called the trial a “grotesque spectacle”. Amnesty International’s Northern Ireland Programme Director Patrick Corrigan commented that “Making abortion illegal does not stop women in Northern Ireland needing or seeking terminations.”

In 2015, nearly 200 women signed an open letter to the Public Prosecution Service stating that they had bought abortion pills, and called on police to arrest them for breaking the law. No arrests were made.

In December 2015, the High Court in Northern Ireland ruled that the country’s restrictive abortion laws were incompatible with human rights.

Just last month, the majority of Northern Ireland’s politicians voted to ignore this ruling, and maintain Northern Ireland’s near total-ban on abortion.

Northern Ireland’s Human Rights Commission’s Chief Commissioner, Les Allamby, stated that “while the NI Assembly is not obliged to amend the legislation, if they didn’t it would be the first time any UK legislature has refused to abide by a declaration of incompatibility ruling.”

4 June 2015 marked the end of a consultation period on the latest law in China’s President Xi Jinping’s crackdown on dissent, the Non-Mainland Non-Governmental Organization Management Law.

His government has detained and jailed activists and blamed “foreign forces”, including foreign NGOs, for the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong last year.

The government now seeks to enact a law that, as currently drafted, will apply to all not-for-profit, non-governmental “social organisations” formed outside mainland China that carry out activities promoting “public welfare” within mainland China.

NGO’s will be required to register with the Chinese government, be subject to supervision and management by the Ministry of Public Security (which oversees the Police), and obtain the consent of an ‘official sponsor’ – these are yet to be designated but are likely to be various government ministries and departments.

It seems unlikely that many, if any, government ministries will be willing to sponsor NGOs working in human rights, especially since the draft law explicitly prohibits activities that ‘endanger….national security, unity and solidarity’ or that ‘go against China’s social morality’.

As Human Rights Watch has commented, these are “vague terms, but ones frequently used to silence peaceful government critics and activists…Only those who echo the Government’s wishes will prosper, while organisations which push the Government to address urgent social problems will languish and could disappear entirely”.

When enacted, this law will therefore lead to many fewer organisations being able to operate human rights projects, or indeed any project deemed to be ‘sensitive’, and not in line with the Chinese administration’s ideology.

Furthermore, Chinese lawyers have said that the Chinese draft is so widely drafted that it is vague and inoperable and effectively gives the police free rein to use and interpret it as they see fit.

Increasing regulation of international NGOs appears to be part of a world trend.  Comparable laws have recently been passed in Russia and India.  A similar law is proposed in Cambodia, a country which receives much investment from China.

While the Indian Supreme Court has interpreted the Indian law fairly favourably in the interests NGOs, the Chinese version is unlikely to benefit from the judicial oversight that the Indian one enjoys.

There is concern that if the Chinese law is passed unamended, it will allow or promote a wave of similarly strict restrictions to be legislated in neighbouring countries.