Scotland Vs USA - Abortion rights

How on earth have we reached the point where the Vice President of the United States of America is continually interfering in policing and the law around protest in Scotland? It’s not an accident, it’s a concerted plan.

In an ever-growing list of comically hypocrisy-laden stories emerging from the US, it seems JD Vance is becoming increasingly concerned with our attitudes towards free speech. The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour expressed alarm before the Vice President became involved — all of this over a ruling in Poole Magistrates’ Court

Abortion protester Livia Tossici-Bolt was convicted of breaching a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) in March 2023 by entering an abortion clinic protection zone in Bournemouth with a placard. Tossici-Bolt is one of only a few who have been convicted under these new regulations.

The 64-year-old received a slap on the wrist, a fairly weighty fine, and support from JD Vance. The latter is what I find most troubling. The audacity to step in and claim there is an attack on the right to free speech, when you’ve rescinded abortion rights, is head-bangingly frustrating — yet not surprising from this current administration.

This protester isn’t alone. There has been a steady increase in individuals being arrested for breaking abortion buffer zones around the UK. Only a couple of months ago, a 74-year-old woman was arrested outside the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Glasgow. Scotland’s abortion buffer zones, introduced last year, prohibits anyone from holding a protest or vigil within 200 metres of numerous clinics throughout the country.

Boy oh boy, Vance didn’t like the sound of that one bit. So, he took a page out of Trump’s book and just started making things up — like the claim that the Scottish Government was sending letters to residents near clinics, telling them they would be prohibited from praying within their own homes.

Which, as we know, is false — but before anyone could properly dispute the claims, the trolls were out in full force. There was a letter for residents living within these buffer zones, which clarified that although restrictions mostly apply to public spaces, if anyone were to act intentionally and recklessly, they could be in breach of the regulations. So unless you’re holding a mass vigil with a megaphone and a large sign clearly stating your intent and deliberately targeting those entering clinics, this does not apply to the everyday resident. It certainly does not impede your right to practise religion.

To protesters who feel the need to target these clinics, hold up placards, and hand out pamphlets to people they don’t know — people going through something they know nothing about —it may feel like your right, even the pinnacle of free speech. Yet free speech should never come at the cost of someone else’s rights, their ability to access healthcare, or even simply go to work without being harassed.

Some religious groups see this as a crackdown on legal pro-life expression, but there have always been places where protests or vigils are prohibited. Free speech should always be protected, but in today’s world, we need to understand the difference between free expression and harassment — and in some cases, hatred. At the very least, we must learn the difference between an inside thought and something suitable to say out loud or post online.

It’s important to remember that buffer zones were not conceived to stop silent vigils, but in response to incidents involving spitting, women being called murderers, and people being physically blocked from entering facilities.

The existence of buffer zones has been welcomed by the majority. Aside from a small group of people — including the Vice President of the US — opposition has been limited.

Yet the ages of those arrested might suggest that anti-abortion sentiment is perhaps more common among older generations. Alas, no. As with anything in life that seems like a broadly accepted belief, it eventually receives pushback if complacency sets in — just like with anti-vaccine movements, or even the drop in seatbelt use.

A new generation of anti-abortion campaigners is emerging — surprisingly young, highly motivated, and backed by major US groups. You wouldn’t have expected Gen Z to stray from the beliefs fought for by generations before them. I don’t believe this is something to worry about — yet — as there remains an overwhelming majority who support abortion rights. However, it is interesting that with platforms like TikTok, a few personalities have gained traction and used that to make people question those rights.

But it’s not just a few wannabe TikTokers sharing their views — some of this activity is heavily funded by US organisations, which have poured millions into boosting anti-abortion efforts overseas. ADF International, a vocal critic of Scotland’s buffer zones, saw a 281% increase in funding from its US parent organisation in just two years. It received a sizeable £1,119,975 throughout 2024 — a significant income for a relatively small UK-based organisation.

With strong links to powerful US politicians, their revenue streams have allowed them to increase lobbying efforts in the UK, run campaigns, and provide legal support to those arrested in buffer zones — including the woman recently convicted in England.

This group has been labelled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre in the US and, as of now, seems to have at least some access to MPs across the UK. Who’s to say there won’t be a targeted approach toward Scottish MSPs?

They’re not the only US group operating in Scotland. 40 Days for Life — an evangelical group — has pledged to protest throughout Lent, a campaign lasting well over a month. They have already carried out several marathon protests. Across the UK, they will attempt to influence anyone entering these clinics.

It’s not far-fetched to imagine these US-backed organisations trying to stir up unrest here. While our history with abortion rights is very different — and far less fraught — than in the US, any organisation funnelling large sums into lobbying foreign governments with their own ideological agenda should not be underestimated. We’d be naïve to think it poses no risk.