Responding to the vigil-antis

How to respond to aggressive and intimidating anti-abortion activity outside clinics.


For 40 days last month anti-choicers ‘40 Days for Life’ stood outside MSI and bpas abortion clinics in London. Many people found the sight of these vigil-antis standing in judgment over women entering abortion clinics repellent and there was some discussion about setting up counter-protests. However, staff didn’t really want even more people out on the streets in front of their clinics. In the event ‘40 Days of Treats’ emerged, delivering daily treats by way of a non-confrontational 'peculiarly British' counter-protest.


Today, members of Abort 67* stand outside bpas in Brighton. Abort 67 could have been air-lifted out of Texas and dumped from the sky given how incongruous this kind of protest is in the UK. Vast billboards of dismembered fetuses are displayed along the road and some women and their partners have been shouted at on their way in to the clinic. It is understandable that this perceived ramping up of aggression and intimidation tactics has led some people to feel that it is no longer good enough to turn a blind eye. Twitter has been abuzz with call outs for people to join a counter-protest.


So, is it time to get out on the streets and show solidarity for women and clinic staff by protesting against these vigil-antis? Our concerns are:


• anything which increases the volume (of noise or people) around clinics may increase the discomfort of women seeking abortion (and the other sexual health services provided)


• counter-protests will give additional attention to anti-abortion campaigns


• we still live in hope that we can find more constructive ways to conduct debate about abortion in this country – ones which recognise most people in the UK think abortion should be an option for women. We don’t want to do anything that accelerates our progress towards a US style ‘abortion-war’. 


• these people are fanatics. You won’t change their mind by reasoning with them or confronting them


That’s why we are calling on all those who want an outlet for their anger to help think of creative responses that:

• are supportive of women seeking abortion and clinic staff
• don’t give excessive attention to intimidating vigil-antis
• draw the attention of the local authorities to the distress this is causing women 
• ask the question about whether this kind of protest is compassionate, caring or ethical
• ensure that the communities and congregations that are supporting this kind of protest are called out on this intimidating behaviour
• can be used to mobilise for positive support of abortion provision and rights

Answers on a postcard please...(or via twitter or comments of course)


*I am not linking to Abort 67 because a gory video opens up within seconds of clicking on the site and I wouldn’t want anyone to come across it unprepared. If you want to visit the site, Google it.

Advertising Standards Authority rule against anti-abortion group

Advertising Standards Authority rules against anti-abortion advice centre


Just as the Government is considering changing regulations on abortion counselling and diverting women to alternative, ‘independent’ abortion advice centres, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) today upheld a complaint about an anti-abortion counselling centre. 


Education For Choice (EFC) made the complaint about an advert placed by the Albany Women’s Centre, an anti-abortion counselling organisation, on Yell.com. EFC objected that the ad was misleading, because it did not make clear that Albany Women's Centre was an anti-abortion group who would not offer impartial advice on abortions.


EFC made the complaint after their own enquiries found that women who attend this organisation for counselling about unwanted pregnancy may be given misinformation and subjected to biased views on abortion.


EFC Director, Lisa Hallgarten, said:


‘We are extremely pleased that the Advertising Standards Authority ruled against the Yell.com advert. It is totally unacceptable that women seeking impartial support and evidence-based information to support them to make a difficult decision about pregnancy should be subjected to misinformation and bias. We are especially concerned about the effect of these services on young people’s ability to make decisions and access services quickly. 


We hope this ruling will draw attention to the fact that there are organisations on our high streets, which advertise pregnancy support and advice but which oppose contraception and abortion and whose intention is to obstruct or dissuade women from accessing these services. 


The Government is currently considering new regulations that will divert women seeking abortion away from the highly regulated abortion providers and towards ‘independent’ counselling organisations. We hope this timely ruling will encourage the Government to think carefully about who is providing these alternative services, what their motivation is for doing so, how transparent they are about what they really offer, and what quality of service women might expect from them.’

There can be common ground between pro and anti-choice movements - another Myth-Busting Monday

Every Monday EFC busts common abortion myths. Todays Myth-Busting Monday explores the concept of a common ground between members of the pro-choice and anti-choice movements that some people are on a quest to discover. While the prospects for finding the legendary common ground look bleak in the US it may not be too late in Britain, if only we could agree on just a couple of things...

Pro-choice advocates have been on the back foot in the US for some time. Many are tired of the war of attrition against abortion rights being waged in state legislatures around the country; they are concerned for the wellbeing of women attending clinics who have to run the gauntlet of angry, aggressive protestors and of those who stand in silent vigil and in judgment on them;  they are fearful for the lives and safety of clinic staff and for the future of reproductive health services. The response of some, including Obama, has been a call for an exploration of the ‘common ground’ in the abortion discussion, posing the possibility of a new kind of discourse on abortion. Explicit in this concept is the hope that a new kind of conversation could take place between pro and anti choice groups, one that is safer and more respectful of the others’ views; that shuns the polarisation of the debate; that is kinder and more productive; most importantly, one that would marginalise and disempower the crazy and scary outliers of the anti-abortion movement.

Recently some 'self-defined' pro-choice advocates in the US have been falling over themselves to try to make concessions to the anti-abortion lobby: calling for abortion to be ‘safe but rare’; challenging the common pro-choice wisdom that later abortions are necessary and legitimate; calling out their own colleagues for not sufficiently addressing the moral dimension of abortion, and thereby damaging the ‘pro-choice brand’; and, importantly, colluding in the use of  the term 'pro-life'. There has recently been a conference to bring together abortion providers and pro-choice advocates with anti-abortion lobbyists and activists to help increase mutual understanding. Many in the pro-choice movement are asking whether it is possible to be pro-choice and simultaneously to be prepared to concede chunks of women's abortion rights. Others are asking what they are getting back in exchange.

What has been marked during this time is that while the pro-choice movement has searched for a language that is conciliatory, there have been no discernible changes in language from the anti-abortion lobby. There has been no decrease in false advertising by crisis pregnancy centres; no support for women to receive evidence-based information on pregnancy options; no acknowledgement of a moral dimension to the pro-choice position; no fewer threats to abortion providers; no support for politicians properly to invest in support for parents who are poor, young, single or otherwise disadvantaged. Most markedly there has been no support for making abortion rarer by lobbying for funding of contraception services. In fact, as we have seen with attempts to defund planned parenthood’s sexual health and contraceptive services in the past week, quite the opposite is true.

If there can be any common ground surely it is that of information and pregnancy prevention. If the anti-abortion movement is not willing to support provision of contraception and can't even agree on the need for evidence-based medical information on which women can reflect in the decision-making process, many feel it is hard to see where else the two movements can meet.

Luckily the abortion debate in the UK is less heated. Maybe the anti-abortion lobby here would like to make some concessions to avoid it becoming so, and to join us in calling for brilliant evidence-based education and information on pregnancy prevention and abortion, and well- funded sexual health and contraceptive services for all. Then I will truly believe in the legendary, and elusive, ‘common ground’.

Myth Busting Monday - Abortion counselling legislation protects women

A common myth is that abortion is traumatic and dangerous for women's mental health. In many parts of the United States doctors are mandated to provide women with specific information on the psychological risks of abortion. The information is not always scientifically accurate or evidence-based. The doctors do not choose what information they have to give out. The state governments often determine this after aggressive lobbying from the anti-abortion movement. So, women going for a safe, legal medical procedure may be, for example, advised that it is likely to damage her health or lead to mental illness.

So, what is the basis for fears about the impact of abortion on mental health? A recent large and comprehensive study of research literature around the world carried out by the American Psychological Association found that ordinary first trimester abortions (90% of abortions in the UK are first trimester) do not present a risk to a woman's mental health. Most women are able to integrate the experience of abortion into their lives without experiencing psychological problems.

So why would MP Nadine Dorries be holding an adjournment debate tomorrow (02.11.10) proposing that the legal framework for abortion should include mandatory provision of information about psychological risk and 'cooling off periods' - in which women who have freely chosen abortion are told to go away and think more about it and come back after a set number of days - Is it because she wants to improve women's lives and keep them safe?

Actually policies which mandate psychological counselling and 'cooling off periods' are a recipe for increasing delays for women choosing abortion, increasing the number of post 10 week abortions (successfully reduced over recent years), and increasing the anxiety and stress that women experience when seeking abortion. Another insidious, and intended, effect of these policies is to remould the anti-abortion movement as somehow pro-women and to reposition abortion, and by extension abortion providers, as dangerous.

None of this is about the health and wellbeing of women. It's highly ideologically driven and is probably just one of a range of attacks on current abortion law and provision we can expect from the anti-abortion movement in the next few months.


Lisa