Silent prayer sparks U.K. free speech debate

MARY REICHARD, HOST:Up next, buffer zones around abortion businesses.

Last week in the UK, a new law took full effect. It makes it a crime “intentionally or recklessly” in the words of the statute … to do any of the following at an abortion clinic:

• “influence any person’s decision to access or facilitate abortion services”
• “obstruct any person from accessing or facilitating abortion services”
• “cause harassment, alarm, or distress to any person in connection with a decision to access, provide or facilitate abortion services”

NICK EICHER, HOST: Within days a man was convicted for silent prayer outside an abortion business.

Last month, a court convicted a British army vet for his thoughtswhen he was caught silently praying within a buffer zone.

Here to talk about is Lois McLatchie Miller. She’s with Alliance Defending Freedom International.

REICHARD: Lois, good morning.

LOIS MCLATCHIE MILLER: Good morning.

REICHARD: First of all, tell us about the case of Adam Smith-Conner. Praying for the unborn outside an abortion center as many people do, but why him in particular? And how did the police know that’s what he was doing?

LOIS MILLER: Well, it's no exaggeration to say that this is a watershed moment for British freedoms. Adam Smith-Connor was simply praying silently within his head on November 24, 2022. He had abortion on his heart because he had participated in abortion 20 years prior, he wanted to pray about the child that he had lost in that experience, he stopped to pray just for three or four minutes across the road from an abortion clinic with his back to the entrance, so that he wasn't disturbing anyone or looking like he was trying to engage anyone in conversation. Yet, this was enough for officers to arrive, ask him about the nature of his prayers, which led to a criminal charge, three days of trial, and now a guilty verdict for Adam based only on the content of his thoughts. This is the first conviction in modern British history that we've seen just based on what somebody was thinking and where they are standing. So it's incredibly concerning.

REICHARD: And just to clarify this, Smith-Conner wasn’t doing anything outward. He wasn’t kneeling, he wasn’t gesticulating, or waving his arms around, or being disruptive in any way?

MILLER: No, that's absolutely right. You know, if you had walked past him that morning, you might have thought he was waiting for a taxi or waiting for a friend. He simply stood in a kind of at-ease position with his hands clasped around his front, his eyes open and just thinking his prayer.

REICHARD: Well as you say, a UK court convicted him. He’s required to pay 9,000 Euros in legal fees, but ADF UK is appealing… Lois, are there other cases like his?

MILLER: Yes, that's right. Yeah, we've have got four ADF, UK, we're supporting four legal defenses across the country, of people who have been prosecuted for peaceful activities, like thinking, praying or Livia Tossici-Bolt her trial will be next in March. She just held a sign saying, here to talk, if you want. She is a retired medical scientist. She spends a lot of her time now devoted to charity work, and she just wanted to be there to offer support for women in crisis pregnancies. That's a very typical activity that we see outside abortion facilities in the United Kingdom. There was a government review about what's really happening in these spaces. Of course, many people argue, though there's a harassment and protest, that's simply not the case. The government found that harassment is incredibly rare outside abortion facilities in the UK, and what typically happens is people just standing, offering help, offering conversation or praying.

REICHARD: And yet, Parliament voted overwhelmingly in support of these laws. Why is that do you think, and is there any precedent for this in the UK?

MILLER: It’s very strange that Parliament voted in support of these laws because the evidence that was gathered by the government in 2017 showed that they were disproportionate, that we did not need buffer zones, that instances of harassment are rare, and when they occurred, existing police powers and laws were already available to deal with any instances of true harassment, because, of course, we all stand against any form of violence and harassment against women. But Parliament didn't vote on the evidence and I fear the real core issue in this debate, which is about free speech and freedom of thought, got lost in a sort of ideological battle. Freedom of Speech often becomes an issue when we're talking about subjects of sensitivity, subjects upon which people disagree. And that's why freedom of speech is so important in these issues, when it is an unpopular view, when it is a pro-life view, or a gender-critical view, or any view that that can face criticism that needs free speech protection more than most, but it seems that our Parliament forgot that instead, took quite an ideological stance.

REICHARD: In the United States, the closest thing we have to a buffer zone law is the FACE Act, an acronym for the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, the FACE Act. That prohibits threats of force or obstructing the entrance to healthcare facilities… but we haven’t seen anyone arrested for their thoughts here—at least so far. What are the differences, you kind of mentioned that before, but what are the differences, between the UK law and the FACE Act here in the US? Could the US get there?

MILLER: Well, no one can predict the future. It's tricky to think. I think, of course, America has a very robust free speech protection in its constitution, which, I know you guys incredibly value, which is great. I think the danger with these kinds of laws, which is something to look out for in America as well as across the world, is the elasticity of the wording. The law that has been passed on the 31st of October, which is a new law which came in to rule out these buffer zones across the United Kingdom. It bans influencing around an abortion facility. It doesn't specifically name silent prayer. It doesn't specifically name these things. But we don't know exactly what influencing means, and it could be subjectively interpreted by an officer, by a prosecutor, to be meaning things like prayer or like offering help or a consensual conversation between a mother and daughter or friends approaching the clinic. And so we have to be watching out for these laws that are vague expansive. Can ban large swaths of communication without being specific. We need to make sure law is clear and that everybody knows exactly what is allowed and what isn't

REICHARD:You’ve been looking at this for a long time. What do you wish the public knew about it that perhaps it doesn’t know, or that media don’t adequately cover?

MILLER: Yes, I think the greatest missed communication within this debate is the voice of women who have benefited from from pro life volunteers being there at the clinic for them. We often, often in the media, this is framed as a debate between women who want to get an abortion and women who want to pray about abortion. But that's not the case at all. Actually, there's been hundreds of women who spoke out on a campaign called Be Here For Me. It was led by Alina Dulgheriu, who was a woman who found herself at an abortion clinic 11 years ago. She thought that abortion was her only option. She'd been left by her partner, she'd lost her job, and she thought that that was her only choice. But because of information she received from a pro-life counselor standing in the streets near the clinic, she actually found out about support available financially, emotionally, practically, with baby supplies, with housing, even, and she made an empowered choice to become a mother, and their voice, the voices of those women, those vulnerable women who would like another option than abortion, have been lost in this debate, sadly. It's absolutely crazy, even from a pro—choice perspective, this doesn't make any sense to ban options from women.

REICHARD: Lois McLatchie Miller is a senior Legal Communications Officer with Alliance Defending Freedom International. Lois, thank you for your time.

MILLER: Thank you so much for covering the story.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.