NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE I n Juno (2007), a young woman makes her way to an abortion clinic and, on her way in, passes a pro-life demonstrator. “Your baby has fingernails,” the harmless high-school student tells her. Fingernails? Huh. She proceeds into the clinic, sees the tapping fingernails of the people inside, then walks straight back out. In the movie, this brief encounter leads to a baby’s survival, a pregnant woman’s character growth, and the fulfillment of the child’s adoptive parents’ hopes and dreams.

These outcomes aren’t only the stuff of fiction. Just ask our own Kathryn Lopez. Women on their way to abortion clinics can and sometimes do reconsider. And women on their way out can and sometimes do ask for help with healing. But abortion advocates don’t want them to. Some choices undermine others. That’s why they increasingly demand buffer zones — essentially pro-life-free zones — around abortion clinics.

In the U.K., the House of Commons passed a bill last week banning pro-life demonstrators from standing within a 150-meter radius of abortion facilities. The law’s sponsors insist that their aim is to prevent women from being threatened, harassed, or prevented from accessing abortions. This is disingenuous, as such laws already exist.

Look at the bill’s provisions, and the real target becomes clear. The law criminalizes “interference” with those seeking, providing, or facilitating abortion, which it defines as behavior that “seeks to influence.” “Persistently, continuously, or repeatedly” occupying the buffer zone is forbidden. As is advising or persuading, or attempting to advise or persuade, or otherwise expressing opinions to those involved. Even informing or attempting “to inform about abortion services by any means, including, without limitation, graphic, physical, verbal, or written means” is outlawed.

If it’s harassment to seek to influence, persuade, opine, or inform, then all journalists, politicians, campaigners, doctors, teachers, and parents — basically everyone — are guilty of harassment. Some will argue that there is a time and a place for expressing one’s views and that doing so outside an abortion clinic is inappropriate. (They are of course entitled to try to influence and persuade others to share in their sense of what’s appropriate.) But should it be illegal? If pro-life speech can be banned within the buffer zone, why not beyond it as well?

Rachael Clarke, chief of staff at the pro-abortion lobby group the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said, “We are delighted with the result in Parliament.” She added that pro-life groups “learn their methods from the US, and despite being told repeatedly about the impact on women, have refused to do anything about it.” She’s right that Americans hold freedom of speech in higher esteem, and that American pro-lifers have inspired others by their perseverance and courage.

Unfortunately, it’s not just speech that the new U.K. law polices, but thought too. Members of the Tory and Democratic Unionist parties proposed an amendment to the bill that would protect those “engaged in consensual communication or in silent prayer.” Parliament rejected it. In February, a pro-life campaigner, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, was arrested for silently praying within an abortion buffer zone, though later cleared of criminal charges. She was arrested again for the same “offense” on March 6. Under the government’s new legislation, she could be convicted. 

Buffer-zone laws reveal not only the totalitarian tendencies of abortion advocates but also their inherent insecurity. Why is it that a woman’s choice to abort is a resolved one only after the fact? If women were so certain, going in, then it would surely take more than a few grannies with rosary beads to spook them. If choosing abortion were really a moment of absolute moral clarity, then last-ditch efforts to talk women out of it would be an annoyance at worst. No different from political campaigners trying to make a pitch for a candidate you’ve already rejected as you enter the voting booth. Moreover, isn’t being annoyed from time to time a price worth paying to live in a free country?

The truth is that pro-life demonstrations are more than annoying — they’re thought-provoking. For those who have not yet had the abortion, they are unsolicited reminders of the possible alternatives. And for those who have, they are reminders of what they might (maybe even should) have chosen instead.

Pro-life demonstrations are also debate-inspiring, reminding those who see or hear about them that the controversy around abortion isn’t over. People still care what goes on inside those clinics.

But abortion advocates don’t want thoughts provoked, or debate inspired. They want abortion to be as widely accepted and accessible as possible. They aren’t pro-choice. Just pro choosing abortion.