Grandmother arrested at abortion clinic warns of expanding free speech 'buffer zones'
Rose Docherty, 74, was arrested in Glasgow, Scotland near the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (QEUH) in February for holding a sign that read: "Coercion is a crime, here to talk if you want."
Docherty was the first person to be arrested and charged under the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act, which went into effect in September, the BBC reported.
The law prohibits any protests or vigils from taking place within 200m or 656ft of 30 clinics offering abortion services in Scotland, but the law specifies that the Safe Access Zone could be extended if considered appropriate.
Docherty's arrest came just days after Vice President JD Vance highlighted the law as an example of free speech being under attack in the U.K.
Uk Woman Threatened With Fine For Praying Within Abortion Facility's 'Buffer Zone:' ' Grossly Orwellian'
Read On The Fox News App
Now, Gillian Mackay, the Green Party parliamentarian responsible for introducing the buffer zones legislation, has now suggested that the Scottish government consider expanding the area of prohibition on "influence" outside hospitals, according to ADF International, a Christian legal advocacy group.
Docherty has rejected a formal warning from the Crown Office - arguing that it was "unjust" - and is waiting to find out what action may now be taken against her.
In her first broadcast interview since her arrest, she told the BBC she had "no reason to regret" the incident, noting it was an "alarming" and "surreal" experience.
She said she had read the law and believed her actions did not violate the legislation.
"I gave consideration to what I was doing…I looked at the law and saw what it said I couldn't do, and thought, OK, well, this is what I can do…I can offer to listen, and if anyone wants to come and speak to me, they can do so, only if they want to come and speak with me," she told BBC's Scotcast.
She said she is prepared to go to prison over the offense.
Docherty has also said that the government essentially wants to stamp out any opposition to abortion.
"I believe it wouldn't matter where we stood…it wouldn't matter how far they pushed the 'buffer zone,'" she told ADF International, a Christian legal advocacy group.
New Online 'Misinformation' Bill Slammed As 'Biggest Attack' On Freedoms In Australia
"It wouldn't matter where we stood –201 meters, or 500 meters away – it seems the authorities would still try to crack down harshly and unfairly on individuals because the government simply disagree with their point of view. This is unjust – of course, there should be laws against harassment, and we all condemn such behavior. But merely offering conversations near a hospital is not a crime."
Dr Greg Irwin, a doctor at the QEUH, was pictured confronting a group of protesters in February 2023, saying that they "cause emotional upset to patients, but also to staff members," per the BBC. Groups have been protesting outside the hospital for 10 years, leading to the passing of the Safe Access Zones Act.
Mackay said patients and staff had told her that they still had to pass the protesters when attending the QEUH leading to distress.
"I think it's appropriate that we take those concerns seriously and the government take a look at whether an extension is appropriate or not," Mackay told the BBC.
The act allows ministers to extend the size of a buffer zone if it is decided that the existing zone is not adequate, a Scottish government spokesperson told the outlet.
Docherty isn't the first person to be arrested outside abortion facilities.
For instance, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, a prominent pro-life activist, was arrested twice in Birmingham for silently praying without any signs near an abortion facility within a buffer zone. She was arrested under a local law known as a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO). She was later awarded $13,000 in compensation for wrongful arrests, according to Christian Today.
The U.K. has drawn international attention for its alleged clampdown on free speech. A number of people have been investigated and arrested for social media posts.Original article source: Grandmother arrested at abortion clinic warns of expanding free speech 'buffer zones'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
20 minutes ago
- UPI
Israel endorses new West Bank settlement to scupper Palestinian state
1 of 3 | Israel's Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, told a press conference in the West Bank on Thursday that he would remove the shackles from a controversial new settlement just East of Jerusalem, primarliy because it would put paid to the decades-long quest for a Palestinian state. Photo by Debbie Hill/ UPI | License Photo Aug. 14 (UPI) -- Israel announced plans Thursday to revive a shelved a 3,400-home development in the West Bank that would seal it off from East Jerusalem and partition the occupied territory, effectively sinking the possiblilty of a Palestinian state. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a far-right cabinet member who is under international sanctions and investigation by the International Criminal Court over the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements, said the so-called E1 project would "bury the idea of a Palestinian state." The proposed development between East Jerusalem and Ma'ale Adumim, another Israeli settlement, has been on ice for more than a decade due to the international community's opposition to the settlements, which are illegal under international law, and in particular E1 because of the risk to efforts to find a solution to the Palestinian question. "After decades of international pressure and freezes, we are breaking conventions and connecting Ma'ale Adumim to Jerusalem. This is Zionism at its best -- building, settling and strengthening our sovereignty in the Land of Israel," Smotrich said. Speaking at a news conference with settler leaders, Smotrich said the land in question was the rightful property of the Jewish people because it had been given to them by God. The announcement came three days after Australia joined France, Canada, Britain, Portugal and Malta in pledging to recognize Palestinian statehood in September with Smotrich telling the BBC the nation they backed would never happen "because there is nothing to recognize and no one to recognize." Smotrich's move drew on an identical playbook he and Defense Minister Israel Katz used in May when they signed off on 22 Jewish settlements, the most significant expansion of the Israeli presence in the occupied West Bank in decades. The two ministers said the step granted the unofficial settlements with legal recognition from the government, with Katz saying it would "prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger Israel." The May 29 move came hours after the governments of Ireland, Norway, Slovenia and Spain issued a joint communique reaffirming their commitment to the implementation of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Three Most Egregious Fabrications In EPA's Climate Rollback Proposal
WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 16: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) logo is displayed on a door at its headquarters on March 16, 2017 in Washington, DC. U.S. President Donald Trump's proposed budget for 2018 seeks to cut the EPA's budget by 31 percent from $8.1 billion to $5.7 billion. (Photo by) Getty Images The EPA's formal proposal to revoke the Endangerment Finding turned out to be worse than I imagined. After reading the text, I was struck not only by its intent but by the sheer scale of fabrication and distortion—of law, of science, and of economic analysis—crafted to serve one purpose: shielding the fossil fuel industry at the expense of public health, environmental protection, and America's economic future. This isn't a debate over policy preferences—it's a wholesale rewriting of reality. It's hard to imagine anything more Orwellian than watching EPA—the agency I worked at for 32 years—walk away from its duty to protect public health and the environment by distorting law and science and using outright falsehoods to rewrite history to protect polluters instead of the American people. Fabricated Law The EPA Administrator has questioned EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. He claims that the Clean Air Act applies only to 'local' pollution—not to global threats like climate change—repeating a long-standing fossil fuel industry argument. The Supreme Court rejected this in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), holding that greenhouse gases are 'without a doubt' air pollutants under the Act and that EPA must regulate them if they endanger public health—regardless of whether impacts are local, regional, or global. Given that the transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, accounting for nearly 30%, EPA acted to mitigate the risks to public health and the environment by regulating these emissions. Every subsequent court challenge—from the D.C. Circuit in 2012 to 2023—has upheld that authority. Fabricated Science The EPA's assertion that the Agency 'never studied CO₂' and relied on flawed science collapses under the weight of the agency's own extensive records. Having led the team that developed the EPA's clean car program relying on the Endangerment Finding, I was at the agency when the 2009 finding was finalized and immediately applied to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars. That determination was grounded in decades of peer-reviewed research—from NASA, NOAA, EPA scientists, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—and underwent one of the most rigorous scientific reviews in the agency's history. To further undermine that record, the EPA now claims it never sought public comment on the finding. That is another fabrication. The 2009 proposal included a 60-day public comment period, during which the agency received over 380,000 comments—written submissions and hearing testimony—that were reviewed and incorporated before the rule was finalized. Yet the EPA's current proposal discards that record in favor of a report from five climate change deniers, hand-picked by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fossil fuel executive. This report bypassed the agency's scientific staff, ignored standard interagency review, and has never been subjected to recognized, scientific peer review. The hypocrisy is staggering, dismissing a deeply vetted, peer-reviewed record while elevating an unreviewed, clearly fossil fuel industry-aligned document. The proposal's suggestion that transportation contributes 'near zero' to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions is equally absurd. Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the nation—a fact documented for years in EPA's own data. To claim otherwise is like saying cigarettes contribute 'near zero' to lung cancer rates. Fabricated Economics The EPA's proposal leads with the claim that revoking clean car standards will lower gasoline prices and deliver net economic benefits. Yet its own analysis shows the opposite: gasoline prices will rise if clean car programs are revoked. The Department of Energy's modeling confirms this, and as former Energy Information Agency (EIA) Administrator Joseph DeCarolis wrote, if the government "disincentivizes electric vehicle purchases, more consumers will purchase gasoline vehicles resulting in higher gasoline consumption and high gasoline prices for everyone." Equally troubling, the proposal erases the $62 billion in annual fuel savings and it ignores the substantial public health gains these standards provide by reducing traditional air pollutants, which would prevent up to 2,500 premature deaths each year. By excluding these benefits, the EPA is effectively assigning no value to American lives saved, an indefensible position for EPA. This is not economic analysis—it's a deliberate distortion of the facts designed to hide higher consumer costs, job losses, and preventable deaths, all while protecting fossil fuel profits. The Stakes Couldn't Be Clearer This EPA proposal is crossing a line that even the most industry-friendly administrations never crossed. If we allow fabricated facts to replace scientific reality, nothing will stop future administrations from doing the same to food safety standards, workplace protections, or aircraft safety rules. As Ryan Gellert, CEO of Patagonia recently wrote 'It is truly Orwellian to see the EPA—an agency signed into existence by Richard Nixon to protect the public from environmental degradation—divesting itself of the responsibility to address the ravages of the climate crisis during a summer of extreme weather and following the hottest year in recorded history.' My granddaughter was born five days after we evacuated from the 2018 Woolsey Fire outside Los Angeles. As she grows up in a world that's struggling to combat climate change, I refuse to accept that her future should be sacrificed for fossil fuel profits. The stakes are too high, the science too clear, the moral imperative too strong. The EPA's stated mission has not changed in 55 years—to protect public health and the environment. What has changed is the willingness of its leadership to sacrifice that mission for political convenience and corporate gain. Climate change will not disappear because politicians deny it, and Mother Nature will not bend to the interests of the fossil fuel industry. The question is whether we will.
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Supreme Court has 'good chance' of hearing Kim Davis' case urging same-sex marriage be overturned: lawyer
The former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed 10 years ago for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is now asking the Supreme Court to review its landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, with her attorney telling Fox News Digital there's a "good chance" it will end up on their docket. Kim Davis, a devout Christian, made national headlines in 2015 when she refused to sign the marriage licenses of same-sex couples over her religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. Davis' lawyer, Mat Staver, is helping her appeal a ruling that she must pay $360,000 in legal fees and expenses to plaintiffs David Ermold and David Moore. "The First Amendment should be an absolute defense to Kim Davis. And secondly, we're asking the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell, the 2015 decision that ultimately caused this problem in the first place," Staver told Fox News Digital. "For them not to review the matter I think is terrible for Kim Davis and also terrible for the country because they've damaged the Constitution and only the court can fix it," Staver added. Staver also told Fox News Digital, "I think we have a good chance at having the Supreme Court take up this case because you have three of the justices still on the bench that were part of the four dissenters in 2015" in Obergefell v. Hodges, "including the chief justice, who gave a very strong dissent." "There's only two justices still on the bench that were on the bench in the majority in 2015, and that would be Kagan and Sotomayor," Staver added. "This is the case with the most compelling facts that can challenge and overturn Obergefell." The case, if it reaches the Supreme Court, would be heard by Justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who dissented to Obergefell v. Hodges; Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagen, who affirmed the decision; and four newly appointed justices. In March, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit wrote in a ruling that "As Davis sees it, issuing Plaintiffs a marriage license would have violated her own constitutionally protected religious beliefs; thus, she asserts, she cannot be held liable. We disagree." "Davis cannot raise a Free Exercise Clause defense because she is being held liable for state action, which the First Amendment does not protect," the ruling added. A petition for writ of certiorari filed last month on behalf of Davis is appealing that decision. "Obergefell was wrong when it was decided and it is wrong today because it was grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process," the filing said. "Overturning Obergefell would not undo any marriage licenses in effect at the time. All marriage licenses, including those between same-sex couples, would continue to be recognized. They would be 'grandfathered.' Going forward, marriage would return to the states as it was prior to Obergefell. It would be up to each state to define marriage," it added. William Powell, an attorney representing Ermold and Moore, and a Senior Counsel with the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, told Fox News Digital that "We are confident the Supreme Court, like the court of appeals, will conclude that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention. "Marriage equality is settled law," he added.
