Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
FOLLOWING A SERIES of anti-abortion protests since Ireland’s termination of pregnancy legislation came into effect on 1 January, the issue of exclusion zones around clinics and GP practices has become a pressing issue.
On 3 January, two days after abortion services became legal in the state, a group of pro-life protesters picketed a GP practice in Galway.
Then, earlier this month and for the second time this year, anti-abortion campaigners protested outside of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda, Co Louth.
This week, Minister for Health Simon Harris said the government aims to have draft exclusion zone legislation prepared by this summer.
Harris’ comments followed reports in The Times (Ireland Edition) on Monday that a US anti-abortion group plans to target women accessing services by training people to intercept them before entering hospitals and GP clinics.
Amid these protests, issues around breaches of data and misleading websites have also made headlines.
In response to Harris’s comments about exclusion zone legislation, the Pro-Life Campaign reiterated its opposition to them and described the introduction of these zones as “a disproportionate response to any risks that may exist”.
“If individuals on either side of the debate were to engage in intimidating or harassing behaviour outside abortion facilities, existing legislation is robust enough to deal with any such situation,” the group has said.
On the back of recent protests, however, pro-choice groups renewed calls for exclusion zones earlier this week in an open letter to Harris.
These protests are “undoubtedly discouraging other doctors from signing up to provide abortion care,” the letter stated, ‘not to mention the effect on women seeking safe, legal abortions here’.
So, what are form are Ireland’s exclusion zones likely to take and what acts could they prohibit?
‘Pressing issue’
There will be plenty of detail to tease out when determining the legalese of Ireland’s exclusion zone legislation over the coming months.
A Department of Health spokesperson has said that “while it was originally intended to provide for such safe access in the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Bill 2018, a number of legal issues were identified during the drafting process”.
The Pro-Life Campaign has consistently said that these zones are a legal non-starter and will be near-impossible to enforce.
So, let’s take a look at how other countries have dealt with that issue, starting with the UK.
Ealing in London became the first council to implement a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) for the area around a local Marie Stopes clinic in the UK last April.
Under this order, a safe zone around the clinic – outlined in red above – has been designated.
Prohibited activities within this safe zone include:
Within the zone, images or text referencing “abortion, baby, mum, foetus, soul, kill, hell and murder” are all prohibited.
Protesting is defined within the zone – which is enforced by police and council staff – as acts of approval or disapproval relating to abortion services including graphic, verbal or written means as well as offering prayers and counselling.
If found in breach of zone rules, a person is liable for a £100 fine or £1,000 fine if found guilty in court.
Since the exclusion zone was enacted last April, it has proven successful, according to Rachael Clarke, a public affairs and advocacy manager at British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS).
Other councils in the UK considering following Ealing’s lead include Lambeth, Richmond, and Southwark in London, and Portsmouth, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, the Guardian newspaper reported soon after Ealing’s zone came into effect.
In September, however, Home Secretary Sajid Javid rejected calls for exclusion zones at abortion clinics throughout England and Wales.
Clarke says that while protests in the UK have levelled off slightly in the past few months, the need for a national solution in the UK remains pressing.
So far, legislation has been piecemeal and largely localised, however. Instead of rules which place abortion services under the same category as – skateboarders loitering in a public place, for instance – Clark argues in favour of national legislation.
While Ealing bans certain acts (see above) within exclusion zones, British Columbia in Canada is perhaps even clearer on the purpose of its exclusion zones.
‘Intimidation and harassment’
Exclusion zone laws have been in place in British Columbia since 1996 under its Access to Abortion Services Act. Under legislation, exclusion zones extend 10 metres from a doctor’s practice and 50 metres from the boundary of a clinic or hospital.
There is also a 160-metre fixed buffer zone around an abortion provider or clinic worker’s home.
Under the legislation, restricted activities within exclusion zones include engaging in “sidewalk interference”, protesting, physically interfering with patients, clinic staff or doctors. There is also no graphic recording allowed within these zones.
In British Columbia, a person who breaks the exclusion zone is liable to pay a fine of at least $1,000 and up to $10,000 if convicted and a probation order can issued for up to two years.
So far, Ireland’s government has been light on detail as it works to figure out how it can implement exclusion zones here and what the rules will be. The aim is clear, though, according to a department spokesperson.
“The legislation is “to allow patients, service providers, healthcare staff and members of the public to enter premises without fear of intimidation or harassment”.
Like British Columbia, Ontario’s exclusion zones are similarly covered under its Safe Access to Abortion Services Act, 2017. Similar offences are covered under this act, which sets a 50-metre zone extending from the doors of a clinic. Hospitals and clinics are also allowed apply for an extension of up to 150 metres. In Canada, exclusion zones are enforced by police officers.
‘Freedom of expression’
The same applies across the border in the United States – a country with a long history of abortion protest – where, in 1994, the federal government enacted the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.
That act prohibits intentional property damage and the use of “force or threat of force or…physical obstruction” to “injure, intimidate or interfere with” someone entering a health care facility.
Certain states prohibit specific activities such as vandalism or obstruction at clinics, while others have enacted exclusion zones around clinics.
Under the FACE Act, a first offence is punishable by a fine and/or 12 months imprisonment, and subsequent offences are punishable by a fine and/or three years imprisonment.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, a family planning NGO established in 1968, 14 states in America and the District of Columbia prohibit certain specified actions aimed at abortion providers.
Three states – Colorado, Massachusetts, Montana - have established ‘bubble zones’ around a person within a specific distance of a clinic’s entrance.
In 2014, however, the US Supreme Court struck down the Massachusetts law that placed a 35-foot buffer zone around clinic entrances when it found that the law violated freedom of expression under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The issue of freedom of speech has also arisen in Australia where Tasmania became the first state to introduce buffer zones of 150 metres in 2013, the breaking of which is punishable by up to 12 months in prison.
Safe access zones now operate in Tasmania, Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and New South Wales.
In 1997, the implied freedom of political communication was first set out in Australian courts.
Since then, questions have been raised about restricting communication in relation to reproductive health services. Whether or not it’s a violation of the implied freedom of political communication contained in the Constitution depends on the type of political debate actually protected by that freedom.
Nonetheless, the High Court in Australia has ruled that limits can be placed on political communication.
“If it is determined that access zone laws place a burden on political communication, it could still be found that the purpose of providing safe access to reproductive health services is a legitimate purpose ‘compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government,” according to the Parliament of Victoria website.
Late last year, however, Tasmania and Victoria’s ‘safe access zone’ laws were challenged by anti-abortion groups.
Unlike in the United States, Australia’s Constitution only protects “political” communication. Australia’s High Court must now decided whether or not ‘safe zone’ legislation limits political communication and whether or not these zones are justified under law.
‘National legislation’
As Ireland’s legislators grapple with the legalese necessary to introduce Ireland’s exclusion zones, Clarke of BPAS says the government has two options.
Exclusion zones can either be implemented at the request of individual clinics, hospitals or GP practices. Or the government can introduce them nationally.
“I would opt for the latter because I think your problems will simply spread and cause additional problems for officers and courts to implement buffer zones one by one,” says Clarke.
To implement exclusion zones, the government will also need its own standard measurement – 150 metres, for instance – from practice or hospital gates as well as a list of prohibited activities.
In terms of successful implementation, “all we’re talking about is passing legislation and having it enforced like any other law,” says Clarke. “I would expect any legislation to be challenged in the courts but by and large, would expect the protesters to abide by the legislation as passed.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
What would it look like? It would look like a bloody good idea.
@Dermot Quinn: I propose the setting up of vigils outside the offices of the Iona institute and various Catholic Churches where abortion information could be handed out along with free “condoms for Catholics” and we’ll see how that plans out.
@Dermot Quinn: It would look like a restriction on freedom to protest. The pro abortion lobby were free to protest when they like when wanting the 8th removed. Anti abortion people have an equal right to protest.
Can’t come quick enough. Women dealing with a crisis pregnancy need protection from harassment, intimidation and unsolicited interference.
#TrustWomen
@The Risen: can we not use current legislation on intimidation & harassment? Btw I think anyone who protests like this needs to have a look at themselves.
@Seamus Mac: I believe criminal harassment requires there to be verbal or physical intimidation etc. Handing out flyers full of lies and telling somebody they’re going to an imaginary fire pit likely wouldn’t count. Best idea is to keep protesters away.
This is setting a precedent and going down a slippery slope,, and is a treat to freedom of expression and democracy, where next for exclusions zones? The Oireachtas?? I am pro life however, women should be allowed to access these services hassle free but a balance must be struck on the right ro protest outside these places also, exclusions zones wont work.
@Elizabeth Hourihane: You ran as a pro-life candidate in the carlow-kilkenny by election, didn’t you Elizabeth?
@The Risen: nice catch
@Elia: What has an opinion piece in a Washington newspaper about NY laws got to do with Ireland??
@Elizabeth Hourihane: Elizabeth, why do you or anyone else feel you need to protest in the first place? The law was passed by the will of the people. You might not agree with it but at least respect it.
The only reason to protest is to intimate and harass those women undertaking the abortion and those people providing it.
@Elizabeth Hourihane: But if you do want to protest, here’s a place you can do it, Archbishop’s House, Drumcondra, Dublin.
You can demand that the archdiocese hand over all reports of abuse and the burial locations of the babies, similar to Tuam.
@Jim Buckley Barrett: by your logic Jim then pro abortionists shouldn’t have been allowed to protest against the old law which was the will of the people at that time. I’m thinking double standards
@Jim Buckley Barrett: what’s that got to do with this article???
@Peter Mc: you lost the discussion with ‘pro abortionists’.
@Elia: Shushhhhh abortion is extremely rare, the reason it’s so rare is because its extremely traumatic, it never ever happens just before birth, it rarely happens in the third trimester, it nearly always happens in the first trimester and a foetus is just a clump of cells right up until its born, its not even human really. It’s usually a last ditch effort because contraception has failed. #shoutyourabortion
@Peter Mc: Peter, the pro choice didn’t protest outside of hospitals or clinics did they? No they marched to the Dáil Eirean. There is zero benefit of protesting outside those clinic other than to harass the people attending. Let the pro life supporters match to the Dáil and protest there.
As to your second point, first the protesters bought God into this, secondly the church is responsible for more child deaths in this country than abortion is and it will take a long, long time before abortion catches up with the church.
@Elia: Come back to us when you aren’t hiding behind a fake account.
https://twitter.com/Elia77326123
Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!
You can search Twitter using the search box below or return to the homepage.
@Jim Buckley Barrett: I think everyone in this country has a right to protest on any issue that they feel strongly against. However, I don’t agree with harassing the general public. I don’t think any law should be put in place to stop a protest.
They will look for laws against protesting outside government buildings and then public places next.
Peaceful protests should remain allowed legal, end of.
@Elia: My thoughts??….
It has Phuckall to do with Ireland,
will that do ye?
@Elizabeth Hourihane: remember when same sex marriage was a slippery slope to people marrying horses? That was gas altogether
@Ali Ní Dhomhnaill: perfectly put. These people shouldn’t be protesting outside medical clinics. Every effort should be made to inform them how unacceptable and counterproductive doing so is. But they should not be criminalised for doing so. Peaceful assembly and protest are rights bestowed by the almighty (or inalienable rights as the Americans would put it) and should never be infringed upon by the state.
@Elia: quick question, was late term abortion legal in NY before this bill? Answer yes.
@The Risen: if your lost on the discussion then I’m all for it
@Jim Buckley Barrett: you just proved my point, they had the RIGHT to protest regardless! And so should anyone else
@Dave O’Keeffe: it seems that preceded same sex marriage https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1215863/Man-reveals-married-horse-Jerry-Springer.html
@The Risen: Elizabeth Hourihane, who comments under her own name and whom I only know of from what I read in the media, has an impressive record as an advocate for numerous issues. Freedom to protest is the lifeblood of any democracy. While many may disagree with her views here she has won the admiration of many others. If she runs again in my constituency I will definitely vote for her.
@Winston Smith: intimidating and threatening behaviour is not peaceful protest!
@Rachel O’ Meara: Why is it traumatic if its just a clump of cells and not human?
Very sad that exclusion zones even have to be legislated for, sadly, among many other awful traits, a common shred of decency is lacking in the so-called ‘Pro-Life’ movement when it comes to treating Irish women with respect. Please stop harrassing our sisters, daughters, mothers, friends, work colleagues, you did enough damage during the Referndum campaign.
@Orla Smith: please stop tarring 700k people with the same brush.
@Orla Smith: god do we have more than our share of nutjobs
@Orla Smith: people have the right to protest full stop. It goes both ways
@Peter Mc: what benefit do you get from protesting at a clinic other than to intimidate women during one of the most emotional days in their life?
@Jennifer Hampson: maybe none, that’s not the point. The point is protest is open to everyone in the country!
@Orla Smith: I’m voted no and I think what these people are doing is disgusting
@Peter Mc: we don’t have absolute freedom to protest in this country.
@Jennifer Hampson: just shows their love both slogan was a load of crap. They couldn’t care less about the woman
@Seamus Mac: She’s talking about the pro life movement, not the people that voted No. She’s 100% right.
@Keith O’Reilly: what’s the difference Keith? Are everyone involved in the pro life movement the same also?
@Seamus Mac: There’s lots of people who voted Yes who weren’t in the pro choice movement as such. I was an active part of the pro choice movement through canvassing and all, but my entire family just voted Yes without any real involvement in it, that’s what I mean.
@Peter Mc: You have every right to protest provided that you do not interfere with other people’s rights. It is not a right to intimidate or interfere with other peoples freedoms or choices.
If i was ever in the horrible position of having to bring my wife to hospital because of FFA, and i met these shower of jokers trying to stop me going in or causing my wife distress…They would be coming into the hospital too……To the A&E department
@Pixie McMullen: that’s the funny thing about it. How in God’s name are those outside going to intimidate those going in seeking an abortion? Are the ‘targets’ going to be wearing Repeal Ts? We have to be careful that we don’t cross the line of right to protest and free speech. It would be interesting to get the views of those who supported direct action outside of Harris’ gaff. Are they against this type of protest? By all means lock up any nutcases seeking to harass anyone attending a hospital but exclusion zones seems extreme.
@GrumpyAulFella: Strange, I don’t see that gang protesting outside Catholic churches and properties against the abuse that went on there.
The law has been past, abortion is now a service in Ireland, don’t like it – don’t choice to use that service but let everyone else alone. There is zero need for protests, those protests will not change anything other than harass the people attending the clinic which is the idea behind them.
@Jim Buckley Barrett: this is not a dictatorship, it’s a democracy and everyone has the right to protest on both sides regardless of what law is in place. I agree the hardliners are out of order but don’t lump all pro life people the same. Remover a third of people still voted no and that also has to be respected! Otherwise, laws would never change
@Peter Mc: It is about a safe zone close to the premises where someone gets a treatment. You dont need to run in the doors, do you? Swer to gawd! Use your brain.
@GrumpyAulFella: Have a look at Newswothy.ie Twitter feed and watch one of their workshops. The plan is to assume anyone entering or exiting is fair game for intervention and information.
@GrumpyAulFella: the extreme actions of protesting women making a difficult choice requires an extreme response.
@Peter Mc: the third who voted no do not need to be respected. It’s democracy they lost. Harassing women and service providers is not protesting, it’s throwing your toys out of the pram because you didn’t win. Organise hundreds of thousands of people to march the streets and then you’ll have a protest.
@Pixie McMullen: Lol. Keyboard tough guy.
Thats definitely Ronnie Corbett outside the Lourdes Hospital.
@Michael Lynch: recycled joke
“Babies are God’s property” – is that the reason the church sold and abuse children in the tens of thousands all over the world?
@Jim Buckley Barrett: why are you constantly bringing catholic abuse into the thread here, it’s nothing to do with abortion. You sound like a bitter man!
@Peter Mc: those head cases are the ones bringing religion into the argument
@John Smith: so the majority of pro-lifers are not taking their stance because of their religious beliefs?
Freedom to protest
@Nathan Mawhinney: but not freedom to harass and distress.
@DJ François: grey area in terms of distress. Should people keep their mouths shut just so they don’t offend?
@Nathan Mawhinney: Yes because it is NOT your business when a woman uses her choice. Other than that you can fart wherever you want.
@☘Hallymore: She can use her choice to abort a child if she so desires, but I’ll forever to be around to tell people like her that killing an innocent is never justified, legal or not.
@Nathan Mawhinney: How many kids do you have yourself, Nathan?
@Nathan Mawhinney: you seem to have a lot of spare time at your disposal why not using it in a constructive matter and do some proper charity work instead of harassing people?
@Matt Beaumont: my first comment seems harsh, I’m not trying to offend people. I’ve never protested against abortion since it became legalized and id never harass someone going into or out of a clinic. My point is that most people who were pro-abortion (like myself)view it as murder, they should be allowed to protest. I’ll always end up offending someone by thinking it’s murder.
@Nathan Mawhinney: No one is pro abortion.
Can they use mam instead of mum?
Novena goers in Galway wearing out the beads on their Rosaries and beating the bejasus out of their chests and then showing their Christianity by intimidating and interfering with women’s legal rights to their own decision relating to their own bodies.
These “Christian” people are so sadly misguided in their own pathetic judgment of others.
Basic cop on and decency should just kick in here, the women going in here are already dealing with so much; this is just zealous toxic judgemental behavior and should be denounced by all across the board.
If we’re going to have exclusion zones why not let it apply to everything, not just abortion? Is Ireland to become a centre of excellence in killing????
I was harassed by Colm O’Gormans band of merry lunatics when making my way to the Popes Mass in the Phoenix Park. Where was my protection.
My local church became a place of persecution during the referendum and the altar and statues to Our Lord and Lady desecrated with repeal tee shirts and stickers. Where was our protection then.
You can’t silence one group without silencing them all. I will support the Sinister Ministers legislation if it applies to everyone.
Any legislation that is based on proximity whether it is the 1.5 safe passing distance of a car overtaking a bike or the proposed 200m distance from schools where alcohol advertising would be banned are hard to define and even harder to implement.
@Sean: The difference between those two scenarios is one involves two moving objects, while the other is solved with a measuring tape.
This legislation needs to be brought in as early as possible in order to protect women from these “pro life” lunatics. It’s already an incredibly difficult decision for most and these lunatics only want to make it worse.
Thanks for this article and the useful overview of safe access zone laws in various countries. Just wanted to add that in Canada, the provinces of Quebec, Newfoundland/Labrador, and Alberta also have safe access zone laws, all passed within the last 2 years. They were all inspired by BC’s law, which was passed in 1995 and has been upheld as constitutional. It infringes freedom of expression but only in a narrow manner that is justified to protect women’s access to necessary healthcare and their privacy and dignity.
None of them protesters look like they are the full shilling. I assume the brains of the operation talk these halfwits into doing the dirty work for them?
have your say