US anti-abortion group planning series of protests outside Scottish hospital
A US anti-abortion group is planning a series of protests outside a hospital in Scotland despite a law banning such demonstrations.
According to its website, 40 Days For Life will hold 'vigils' outside the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow from March 5 until April 13.
A law passed last year by the Scottish Parliament outlawed anti-abortion activists from protesting within 200 metres of abortion clinics.
On Wednesday, a 74-year-old woman became the first person to be arrested under the legislation.
The protests that have taken place in Glasgow today have been utterly shameful.
I am grateful to Police Scotland for acting quickly.
Everybody deserves access to healthcare without harassment.
That is why I introduced my Act, and why these disgraceful protests are now illegal. pic.twitter.com/k2AdgCb2cP
— Gillian Mackay MSP (@GillianMacMSP) February 19, 2025
Hardgate Road, just outside the hospital, had been a frequent target for anti-abortion protesters before the Safe Access Zones Act was passed by MSPs.
Despite Wednesday's arrest, the 40 Days For Life group still has the area marked as part of its global campaign to protest against abortion, which includes hundreds of locations around the world.
The group, which began in Texas, describes itself as 'an internationally co-ordinated 40-day campaign that aims to end abortion locally through prayer and fasting, community outreach, and a peaceful all-day vigil in front of abortion businesses'.
Gillian Mackay MSP, who brought forward the buffer zones legislation, warned the group against further demonstrations.
'I urge 40 Days and anyone else who is planning to protest in a safe access zone to think again, as they will be stopped and there will be consequences,' she said.
'The protests that have taken place outside Queen Elizabeth and other hospitals have been utterly shameful and have no place in a modern or progressive Scotland. That is why I introduced my Act, and why they are now illegal.
'These zones were introduced to stop the intimidation and obstruction of people accessing abortion services, including the shameful scenes of protest groups waving graphic banners and in some cases using megaphones and loudspeakers to abuse service users and staff.
'We know the awful impact that these protests have had. Some of the testimonies from women who have had to endure them have been heartbreaking. Why would anyone want to add to that hurt by spreading even more fear and anxiety?'
The development comes days after US Vice-President JD Vance criticised Scotland's buffer zones.
Speaking at a security conference in Munich, Donald Trump's deputy said: 'Just a few months ago the Scottish Government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so-called safe access zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law.
'The Government urged readers to report any fellow citizens suspected guilty of thought crime. In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.'
First Minister John Swinney dismissed his comments, saying: 'JD Vance is just wrong and that issue was extensively discussed during the passage of the Bill. On the letter issued to households, his claims were wrong about that letter as well, and no such point was put to residents whatsoever on private prayer.'
Ms Mackay added: 'With JD Vance and his extreme supporters spreading toxic misinformation about Scotland, it is vital that we stand up for reproductive rights and against those who are working to undermine them.
'Abortion rights are human rights, and I know that the people of Scotland stand firmly against the anti-choice protests of US-backed campaign groups like 40 Days.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Labour MP Vicky Foxcroft quits as government whip over cuts to disability benefits
Labour MP Vicky Foxcroft has quit her job as a government whip in opposition to the government's plans to cut disability benefits. She wrote in a letter to the prime minister that she could not vote "for reforms which include cuts to disabled people's finances". The former shadow minister for disabled people becomes the first MP to quit a government job over the controversial welfare reform plans that have seen over 100 Labour MPs publicly express concern over the proposals. A government spokesperson defended the reforms as "principled" and insisted they will protect the vulnerable. Politics latest: The MP for Lewisham North wrote that the benefits system is in "desperate need of reform", but argued this is not the way to do it. She said: "I absolutely understand the need to address the ever-increasing welfare bill in these difficult economic times, but I have always believed this could and should be done by supporting more disabled people into work. "I do not believe that cuts to personal independence payment (PIP) and the health element of Universal Credit should be part of the solution." Ms Foxcroft said she has "wrestled" with the decision over whether to resign, but said: "Sadly it now seems that we are not going to get the changes I desperately wanted to see. "I therefore tender my resignation as I know I will not be able to do the job that is required of me and whip - or indeed vote - for reforms which include cuts to disabled people's finances." She has received public support from a number of fellow Labour MPs, who praised her "principled" stand on this issue. 'Moral case for change' The government published its bill earlier this week to tighten the eligibility for PIP benefits, and also cuts to the sickness-related portion of Universal Credit. Ministers say these plans will cut £5bn from the welfare budget that is ballooning. The cost of long-term sickness and disability benefits for working-age people has risen by £20bn since the pandemic and is forecast to hit £70bn over the next five years. Ministers have said there is also a moral case for change, with one in eight young people not in education, training, or employment - prompting fears of a "wasted generation". But disability groups say they fear an increase in suicides and mental health conditions. Read more from Sky News:Why cancer patient is praying assisted dying bill passes major voteCompensation scheme for Capture victims announced The government's own assessment forecast an extra 250,000 people could be pushed into poverty - including 50,000 children. It did not include the impact of people moving into work. A government spokesperson said: "This Labour government was elected to deliver change. The broken welfare system we inherited is failing the sick and most vulnerable and holding too many young people back. It is fair and responsible to fix it. "Our principled reforms will ensure those who can work should, that those who want to work are properly supported, and that those with most severe disabilities and health conditions are protected."
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
Exposing ObamaCare Subsidy Fraud
Bigger government invariably creates more opportunities for fraud. Exhibit A is the ObamaCare insurance subsidy racket, which a new Paragon Health Institute report finds has resulted in some 6.4 million people this year receiving free health insurance to which they aren't entitled. Enrollment in the ObamaCare exchanges ballooned after Democrats sweetened subsidies in 2021. The 2021 law capped how much households are required to pay toward their premiums as a share of income on a sliding basis. Households get a tax credit that covers the difference between their plan premium and what they are required to pay.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Whatever They Do, Don't Let Them Reform An ‘Insolvent' Social Security
Let's start with the obvious, now and in the future Social Security payments aren't remotely imperiled. It's said here over and over again, but rates saying once again, that the surest sign that present and future Social Security payments (including COLA increases) are safe and sound is the certain lack of a 'lockbox' or 'trust fund.' In the past, Social Security collections that weren't sent out to retirees were predictably spent by politicians who exist to spend. In the future, shortfalls in Social Security collections relative to outgoings will be paid for by general revenues flowing into Treasury. Which is why reform of Social Security, reduced benefits, or delayed retirement age promoted by the various Social Security alarmists and scolds would be such a bad idea. Yes, you read that right. Reform of Social Security would be an awful idea precisely because it would lead to bigger government. Outlandish? Not really. Stop and think about it. In thinking about it, let's be clear that Social Security, like Medicare, was itself a bad idea. Really bad. The very notion that we need or needed government to provide for retirement in a world and nation dense with all manner of financial services firms eager to put our savings to work in pursuit of retirement nest eggs insults foolish. Just think how much bigger all of our retirements would be if the U.S. Treasury hadn't been the recipient of so much of our earnings each paycheck, not to mention the equal amount contributed by our employers. Still, if there's a positive to Social Security it's that what's a bad idea has the potential to account for a growing share of federal dollars flowing out of Washington. The latter worries the Washington Post's Catherine Rampell, along with libertarians like the Cato Institute's Romina Boccia, but this situation should cheer those who prefer erecting roadblocks to government growth wherever we can find them. Rampell and Boccia worry about the federal government not having enough money to spend as Social Security accounts for a growing share of federal outlays, but perhaps at least Boccia could be convinced that this is a feature of Social Security's allegedly looming 'insolvency.' As is argued in my upcoming book The Deficit Delusion, the bigger the take of Social Security from general revenues, the fewer opportunities for politicians on either side to dream up new ways of spending our money. The simple, economy-sapping truth is that most government programs start out small, only to grow big. The growth is an effect of every program having at least one constituent on both sides of the aisle in Congress. Once sponsors can be found on both sides, it's hard to kill what shouldn't have been given life to begin with. So, while Social Security remains a bad idea, it's a bad idea that we all know, and that most of us have worked around. See the earlier comment about the density of financial service firms. Rather than give the political class new dollars to dream up new programs, it's better to simply allow Social Security to 'crowd them out.' So-called 'insolvency' can't come soon enough.
