A BUFFER ZONE IDEA is being promoted by the largest abortion clinic provider in Britain to ‘save profitable business made by killing babies’, according to Andrew Stephenson, founder of pro-life pressure group Abort67.
The small group is facing opposition by a gang of MPs and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) over its vigils outside abortion clinics.
MP Diane Abbott has persuaded 22 colleagues (to date), such as Worthing West’s MP Sir Peter Bottomley, to support abortion clinics by signing up to ‘Early Day Motion 735’ in Westminster.
The motion accuses anti-abortion groups such as Abort67, composed mainly of churchgoers, of ‘menacing’ staff, showing ‘threatening and intimidating’ behaviour by talking with pregnant mothers; showing images of aborted babies in ‘horrifying leaflets’ and filming the public.
The MPs recognised groups’ legal right to protest but added, ‘these particular protests are tantamount to harassment’ and demanded that police act to ‘protect the clinic and enforce a buffer zone’.
Ann Furedi, head of BPAS, wrote (The Guardian, 28 November 2014): “Our contention is this: there are plenty of places to protest against abortion, and for the small number of people who wish to do so, plenty of channels to campaign to restrict women’s reproductive choices. But pregnant women should be left alone.”
Andrew Stephenson, founder of Abort67, claimed that BPAS had commercial reasons for wanting buffer zones. He said: “We have no doubt that the reason BPAS, which is the largest abortion provider in the UK, wants to get rid of us by introducing buffer zones is because we are hurting their business.
“BPAS has shown utter contempt for women by hiding what they will do to their customers’ unborn children. If BPAS was happy for us to be outside their killing centres, we would be concerned that we were being ineffective.
“This multi-million pound industry is lying about Abort67 to protect themselves from accountability.”
Andrew Stephenson believes buffer zones would harm other peaceful interest groups wanting to democratically express their views on other issues.
He added: “Everyone should be concerned that this attack on free speech creates an opportunity for any special interest group to request that strikers/protestors are unable to meaningfully demonstrate their objections. Is that really what political authorities such as the Labour party and the heads of unions want?”