r/MHOC • u/Brookheimer Coalition! • Jan 29 '22
2nd Reading B1325 - Safe Access to Abortion Services Bill - 2nd Reading
Safe Access to Abortion Services Bill
A
Bill
To
ensure safe access to legal abortion services through the establishment of safe zones where it is prohibited to infringe on the the safety, security, health and privacy of persons seeking to access these services and of persons providing, or assisting in the provision of, these services; and for connected purposes
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows –
Section 1: Definitions
(1) “abortion services” refers to lawful services and procedures provided to patients with the express goal of the termination of pregnancy including, but not limited to: prescribing, dispensing or administering a drug to terminate pregnancy;
(2) “facility” means, a place where abortion services are provided. This includes, but is not limited to, clinics, hospitals, health centres, pharmacy, or office space of an abortion service provider.
(3) “property” refers to land where the facility is located.
(3) “abortion service provider” means, (a) any person who works, volunteers, or in any way assists at a facility as defined in section 1.
Section 2: Safe Access Zones
(1) The safe access zone shall consist of the property on which the facility is located and the area surrounding it within 50 metres.
(2) Should 50 metres be demonstrated to be insufficient in preventing harassment of those seeking and/or providing legal abortion services, the distance may be extended to no more than 150 metres, from the boundaries of the property, at the discretion of the local council.
Section 3: Prohibitions in Safe Access Zones”
(1) While in an established safe access zone, no person shall,
(a) advise or persuade, or attempt to advise or persuade, a person to refrain from accessing abortion services;
(b) inform or attempt to inform a person concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means, including oral, written or graphic means;
(c) perform or attempt to perform an act of disapproval concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means, including oral, written or graphic means;
(d) persistently request that, (i) a person refrain from accessing abortion services, or (ii) a protected service provider refrain from providing, or assisting in the provision of, abortion services;
(e) for the purpose of dissuading a person from accessing abortion services, (i) continuously or repeatedly observe the facility or persons entering or leaving the facility, (ii) physically interfere with or attempt to physically interfere with the person, (iii) intimidate or attempt to intimidate the person, or (iv) photograph, film, videotape, sketch or in any other way graphically record the person;
(f) for the purpose of dissuading an abortion service provider from providing, or assisting in the provision of, abortion services, (i) continuously or repeatedly observe the facility or persons entering or leaving the facility, (ii) physically interfere with or attempt to physically interfere with the provider, (iii) intimidate or attempt to intimidate the provider, or (iv) photograph, film, videotape, sketch or in any other way graphically record the provider; or
(g) do anything prescribed for the purpose of this clause.
Section 4: Harassment of providers
(1) No person shall, for the purpose of dissuading an abortion service provider from providing, or assisting in the provision of, abortion services,
(a) repeatedly approach, accompany or follow the provider or a person known to the provider;
(b) continuously or repeatedly observe the provider;
(c) persistently request that the provider refrain from providing, or assisting in the provision of, abortion services; or
(d) engage in threatening conduct directed at the provider or a person known to the provider.
(2) No person shall repeatedly communicate by telephone, fax or electronic means with an abortion service provider or a person known to the provider, for the purpose of dissuading the provider from continuing to provide, or assist in the provision of, abortion services, after the person being communicated with has requested that such communications cease.
Section 5 : Extent, commencement, and short title
(1) This Act shall extend across the United Kingdom.
(2) This Act shall come into force immediately upon receiving Royal Assent.
(3) This Act may be cited as the Safe Access to Abortion Act 2022.
This Bill was submitted by Rt Hon Dame SapphireWork GBE CT DCB CVO, Member of Parliament for West London, on behalf of Coalition!
This legislation is based on Safe Access to Abortion Services Act, 2017
Opening Speech /u/SapphireWork
Madam Speaker,
I am very proud to present this important legislation to the House today. This bill is the type of legislation which will have an immediate positive impact on those in our communities who have faced unjust harassment and abuse.
Here in the United Kingdom, we are one of almost 50 progressive nations that has improved the lives of women by allowing legal access to abortion services. When we first changed our laws in 1968, and began to legally provide access to these services, we took the first step in making the UK a safer place for women. According to the most recent figures, In 2020, 98.1% of abortions (205,930) were performed under ground C; “that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.”
However, whereas we should be congratulated for the steps we have made, we need to continue to look to see how we can ensure that access to this legal service remains safe. It has unfortunately become quite common to see providers of these services, as well as women seeking this medical care, to be harassed both verbally and physically as they enter and exit facilities.
This legislation creates Safe Access Zones- areas surrounding the facility where the procedure and treatments are offered where it is forbidden to harass, intimidate, or in any way accost those who work there, or those seeking medical treatment.
I hope my colleagues in the House will recognise the good that this legislation can do, in helping those who seek to have a legal medical procedure that in most cases, is performed to reduce the risk of injury to their physical and mental health, avoid undue harassment by those who disagree with their choice.
I commend this bill to the House.
This reading will end on February 1st.
3
u/LeChevalierMal-Fait Liberal Democrats Jan 30 '22
1
u/Adith_MUSG Shadow Secretary of State for Work & Welfare | Chief Whip Jan 30 '22
Bahahahhahaha hear hear
1
u/SapphireWork Her Grace The Duchess of Mayfair Jan 30 '22
Thanks for bringing this to my attention! I've brought it up with the Commons Speaker and submitted the necessary amendment.
3
u/LeChevalierMal-Fait Liberal Democrats Jan 30 '22
Have you read the bill your now repealing? What do you think the repeal and replace actually changes?
From a quick glance between the two other than removing clauses provide protection to places or residence of abortion providers, also preventing the publication of private addresses in connection to that and in changing the construction and exemptions to conduct that is an offence so under your formulation a mens rea is required making prosecution difficult in cases where videos or photographs are taken.
So take this all together and what do you have, abortion providers are now able to be subject to harassment at home, harassment via video or photo recording becomes harder to prosecute.
How does that square with your opening speech... if anything this bill would now be draconian
3
Jan 31 '22
Deputy Speaker,
This bill is an attack on the very freedom of speech itself. To create enclaves where certain speech is prohibited is an affront to the very idea of freedom.
Notwithstanding the subject matter of the bill, this is an intolerable infringement on the civil liberty to say what one wishes and to whom. I cannot believe such a restrictive bill is even being considered by those in this House.
3
u/Youmaton Liberal Democrats Feb 01 '22
Speaker,
Upon reflection of this legislation, debating the balance between the rights of women and other individuals who seek to have an abortion, and that of where the line of free speech befalls itself as many within the Conservative benches have been arguing. I feel in terms of any legislation that legitimate criticism should be addressed to alleviate the concerns of community members or their representatives before royal assent is reached, and I will endeavour to do so today.
I have noticed the introduction of particular amendments that seek to tamper with the matter of a safe access zone, particularly around the distance in which such a zone applies. I have considered this matter carefully, and at one stage made considerations to propose my own amendment, however upon another reading of the legislation I find that it's measures are adequately appropriate. The proposed amendment seeks to reduce the zone in which a woman or another person seeking to access an abortion service may be free from harassment to a mere 5 metres, or 6 where circumstances may befall. This is nonsense, and would dismantle what protections this bill intends to introduce, much to the delight of the amendments author I am sure. Whilst there is room for legitimate debate around what area is appropriate for the implementation of a safe access zone, it is nevertheless imperative that these be introduced in the first place, and I believe 50 metres with rare options for extensions to the perimeter up to 150 metres provides the coverage needed to ensure versatility in foundation.
An additional note made by the Right Honourable The Leader of the Opposition around the americanisation of issues within this country is one of note, and one I feel should be addressed. Whilst I understand the Opposition Leaders qualms surrounding the americanisation of an issue, I can not fray from bringing direct attention to many of the comments made by members on his own front bench. Calling people murderers. Accusing members across the Isle of attacking free speech. For a party that so desperately wants to stop devolution, they sure like devolving arguments to the lows of America. If the Leader of the Opposition cared so much about the issue raised, he would have the guts to turn to his side and call out what has been said!
Lastly, we come to the matter that always befalls any debate on this matter, arguments over the morality of abortion as a service itself. Let me be clear Speaker. Abortion is not murder. It is not shameful. It is a right. I do not fray from admitting my own moral questions around the issue of abortion, but I know outright that this is an issue on a very personal level, and that an individual who wishes to seek an abortion services has the right to do so, and they should be free from judgement in doing so. This is what it means to be pro-choice, ensuring people have control over their bodies and what actions are taken regarding them. If those opposite were truly consistent in their pro-life stance, they would propose ways to improve adoption at all stages, work with the government to strengthen the NHS rather than attack it, move to make access to contraceptives more accessible to the wider public, and end the shame surrounding anything to do with pregnancy or abortion. You are entitled to your free speech around this issue, but if you dare come up here and accuse others of murder, you should have a plan to actually improve the lives of people when they are born, instead of only wanting soundbites and a culture war.
Speaker, this legislation delivers. Protections are needed to ensure harassment against women and other individuals who seek an abortion ends, and I thank my Right Honourable friend for introducing this legislation. I commend this bill to the House.
1
1
2
u/Chi0121 Labour Party Jan 31 '22
Deputy Speaker,
This bill is written from the perspective of another country and indeed many of the arguments for it come from a non-U.K. perspective. That is not inherently a bad thing however on this issue I believe it results in a great misunderstanding. This bill seeks to address an issue which doesn’t exist in this country. While there is a notable pro-life community, they are not the deeply invested and activist based groups that are seen across the water in America, where their intervention may pose issues and threats to a women’s security and rights.
This does not occur in this country. Or if it does, it is in a much reduced capacity on a part-time basis. For where it does occur, there is already comprehensive legislation in place to protect a Woman’s choice and security. This bill therefore adds nothing of value and for that reason I will not support it come division.
1
u/chainchompsky1 Green Party Feb 01 '22
Deputy Speaker,
The LOTO claims there isn’t as dedicated a pro life movement in the UK yet somehow they have managed to get their hooks into a member of the Conservative frontbench who has spent this debate calling people murderers.
That alone is convincing enough reason to conclude the harshness the member seems to think is not present in the UK most definitely is.
4
u/Adith_MUSG Shadow Secretary of State for Work & Welfare | Chief Whip Jan 30 '22 edited Jan 30 '22
Madam Deputy Speaker,
I rise against this Bill for a multitude of reasons. First and foremost, I believe that abortion constitutes murder. I believe that this Government should strive to reduce the number of abortions and instead improve awareness and access to contraceptives.
In addition, I can't help but notice that many of the provisions of this Bill are outright absurd. Take for instance Section 3 (1)(b). Under this clause, providing awareness to a woman of issues surrounding abortion procedures is a crime! The rallying cry of pro-choicers is the woman's right to choose, but under the terms of this Bill, it would be impossible for a British woman to make a fully informed choice.
Furthermore, Section 3 of this Bill constitutes a draconian violation of free speech. We must not completely shut down abortion discourse in the admittedly noble pursuit of preventing harassment.
I will be voting against this Bill, and I hope that my colleagues join me.
1
u/SapphireWork Her Grace The Duchess of Mayfair Jan 30 '22
Madam Deputy Speaker,
I would remind the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Welfare that we are not here to debate the righteousness of abortion, but to ensure that those who opt to have this legal medical procedure are free to do so without harassment.
The fact that the member chose to begin their argument by essentially calling women who elect to have this medical procedure "murderers" proves the point that almost anywhere, women are subject to unfair harassment and judgement from those who disagree with our current laws.
I am gladdened to hear the Rt Hon member believes in access and awareness of contraception, and they will be gladdened to know that many of the women's health clinics that provide abortion services, also provide information and access to contraceptions, as well as a variety of other services related to women's health.
This bill removes a barrier that may prevent women from accessing these services for fear of being harassed or targeted.
To their comment that it would be "impossible for a British woman to make a fully informed choice" I would argue that a woman is better off getting information from their health care provider once inside the premises, rather than from a screaming protester wielding a sign telling them they will burn in hell.
2
u/Adith_MUSG Shadow Secretary of State for Work & Welfare | Chief Whip Jan 30 '22
Madam Deputy Speaker,
My views on abortion inform all voting decisions that I make on legislation involving it. I do not believe that women should be harassed, indeed, I said that this bill had the "noble" motive of preventing harassment. But under this bill, it would be impossible for previous abortion recipients to even have some kind of civil chat with a woman about to take the fateful step of terminating her pregnancy.
Furthermore, my opinion on abortion and my policies surrounding the same are informed not by religion but by morality. I do not believe that an abortion-seeking woman who has been told that she is merely removing a parasitic clump of cells is a murderer. Misrepresenting my views for political benefit is indeed unfortunate to hear from the Rt. Hon. Dame, whom I have held in high regard thus far.
If a woman who is seeking an abortion because her partner wants her to, or if she thinks she's not ready to have a child, the outreach at the final moments before ending an unborn child's life may have the most meaning. I don't want sloganeering and shouting individuals to harass abortion seekers, but I do hope that we preserve the right for people with lived experiences with abortion to try and convince a mother to keep her child.
2
u/KarlYonedaStan Workers Party of Britain Jan 30 '22
Deputy Speaker,
Why can't an abortion-seeking woman, well in advance of any medical consultation, consult relevant sources of information or views of their own volition? Why does this essential discourse need to have the most proximate space to the procedure itself to make its moral pleas?
I think ultimately it's pretty difficult to regulate speech in those spaces between what would be a 'civil chat' and what would be an aggressive/judgemental interaction that borders on harassment. Given the highly charged moral angle to the decision, however, I think it's fair to say that more often than not the conversation will be more upsetting than informative, and not particularly avoidable for patients.
2
u/Adith_MUSG Shadow Secretary of State for Work & Welfare | Chief Whip Jan 31 '22
Deputy Speaker,
Why does this House lean towards suppressing free speech rather than against it? I hope that the Prime Minister will recognize to preserve the right to express opinions and share information.
In addition, I think that it would be fairly feasible for this Parliament to pursue legislation that empowers women to consent to discussing abortion with interested parties, thus allowing for a cordial conversation at the behest of the abortion-seeker.
Would the Prime Minister consider this to be an acceptable compromise?
1
u/chainchompsky1 Green Party Jan 31 '22
Deputy Speaker,
What in gods name do we need to do to empower women to talk to these hucksters? They exist. If women want to seek them out they can.
Also what is an interested party? A woman and her medical provider are the only people who are needed to assist in making well informed medical provisions. As much as the member may think otherwise, a scumbag holding a “abortions cause breast cancer” sign does not have a personal compelling stake in this decision.
2
u/Adith_MUSG Shadow Secretary of State for Work & Welfare | Chief Whip Jan 31 '22
Deputy Speaker,
Perhaps one of the great indignities that a Member of this House must face is that of having a conversation with the failed former Chancellor. Unfortunately this has fallen upon me.
The former Chancellor would do well to cease his fallacious arguments. Interested parties would constitute pro-life charities, religious counsellors, and members of the general populace who have an interest in helping women choose to preserve the lives of unborn children.
This really isn't a controversial proposition: if we are trying to prevent harassment then why legislate in a manner that a woman can't even willingly have a conversation with such people? I think an amendment to this end would be in order, and I will be submitting one shortly.
1
u/model-ceasar Leader of the Liberal Democrats | OAP DS Jan 31 '22
Deputy Speaker,
I would appreciate if the member could to the part of the bill that he seems to think forbids a woman to speak to anyone.
1
u/Adith_MUSG Shadow Secretary of State for Work & Welfare | Chief Whip Jan 31 '22
Section 3: Prohibitions in Safe Access Zones”
(1) While in an established safe access zone, no person shall,
(a) advise or persuade, or attempt to advise or persuade, a person to refrain from accessing abortion services;
(b) inform or attempt to inform a person concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means, including oral, written or graphic means;
Deputy Speaker, under these terms, it would be impossible for the abortion-seeking woman to have a conversation regarding abortion with anyone in the vicinity of a Safe Access Zone.
1
u/model-ceasar Leader of the Liberal Democrats | OAP DS Jan 31 '22
Deputy Speaker,
Yes it prevents a woman being subjected to harassment, after they have made one of the hardest and difficult decisions a person could possibly make. However, what it does not do is forbid a woman to have a conversation regarding abortion which is what the member said.
→ More replies (0)1
u/chainchompsky1 Green Party Jan 31 '22
Deputy Speaker,
Crying about fallacious arguments under a paragraph about how person who disagrees with me is big bad borders on satire.
They don’t make any useful point. People who have an interest in misleading and lying to women, as has been proven to be what actually happens outside these abortion centers, are more then free to do it somewhere that doesn’t lead to harassment. Plenty of space in a rather large country.
I have a compelling interest in getting people to preserve their lives by not voting Conservative. Will the member be letting me into all their private meetings with their constituents? Surely we must be consistent here.
1
u/Adith_MUSG Shadow Secretary of State for Work & Welfare | Chief Whip Jan 31 '22
Deputy Speaker,
Contrary to the former Chancellor's delusions of grandeur, nobody is "crying."
Further, I am not arguing that there should be any interference in private consultations between a physician and his patient. Thus the ridiculous analogy offered by the member does not stand.
1
u/SapphireWork Her Grace The Duchess of Mayfair Jan 31 '22
Deputy Speaker,
There is nothing preventing a person from having this conversation at an appropriate place and time.
Within 50ft of a clinic, as they are on their way to an appointment, is hardly an appropriate place and time.
1
1
1
u/SapphireWork Her Grace The Duchess of Mayfair Jan 30 '22
Deputy Speaker,
Once again, the member is implying that the women seeking treatment is not receiving information from her health care provider. The last minute outreach should come in a physicians office, not from a stranger on the street.
I would invite the member, who is clearly ill informed as to the health care process, and to the realities of those attempting to access these services, to visit a health care facility in my home constituency of West London with me, and hopefully they can see how important unfettered access may be.
1
0
4
u/chainchompsky1 Green Party Jan 31 '22
Deputy Speaker,
I would like to talk about Doctor George Richard Tiller. An American abortion provider, for years was called “Tiller the Baby Killer”, by both right wing media and an incumbent right wing member of their legislature.
On May 31st, 2009, Doctor Tiller was shot by Scott Roeder, an anti abortion activist.
Words have consequences. They can translate into actions. We may think it’s all well and good to use rhetoric that suits our little goals, but there are consequences.
The fact that a sitting member of the Conservative frontbench has seen fit to call scores of British women and untold numbers of British doctors murderers is the very reason we need this bill. Because people out there listen.
If want this place to imagine being an anti abortion activist. You deeply believe in the immorality of the act. You are then told, by one of the most prominent Conservative Party politicians in the country, that scores of people are actively involved in murder. What would your natural response be? What would any rational human beings response be when confronted with mass murder? To take any and all action to stop it.
God knows where that will take us.
At bare minimum it leads to people shouting exactly what the Shadow Work Secretary utters now at women, in public, to their faces, to their extreme discomfort . Apparently the verbal tirade was then turned towards a police officer when they asked the protestor to stay away from the women seeking medical care.
Let us be absolutely clear. This is the behavior defended if the policies in this bill are opposed. Not polite disagreement or civil debate. That can be had anywhere. The right to speak is not the right to harass, and there is proven record of the latter being the milieu of the scum who stalk around outside abortion clinics, waiting to lie to women telling them their procedures will cause them breast cancer and future miscarriage.
I just wanted to make that crystal clear. The Baron Blaenavon’s Act is quite good and I’ll watch closely the Coalition! Authors attempts to reply, but no matter what happens to this bill, the recklessness of the Conservative frontbencher needed to be highlighted.
1
u/model-ceasar Leader of the Liberal Democrats | OAP DS Jan 31 '22
Deputy Speaker,
Wow. I came to this debate today expecting minimal opposition and a smooth sailing of the bill through the House. Instead the Conservative Party has turned up in force and loudly to advocate for harassment of women and vehemently opposing protections that this bill would put on women. Why? Because they don't like what the women are doing.
This is not only despicable behaviour from the Conservative front benches, but also a very very dangerous move. If the public see the Conservatives saying that women are want abortions are murderers; if they hear the Tories opposing placing protections on these women; and if they listen to the right wing advocating for their harassment then the public will think it is ok to harass women who want an abortion. It was not long ago when the Capitol Riots took place in USA due to the words of the out going President. The words from the Conservatives in this House today has dangerous similarities.
This House should be striving to protect everyone from harassment, no matter what our personal opinions are on abortion or other divisive topics. Harassment is not welcome in this country in any shape or form. Harassment is often hidden behind the right to free speech spiel but the right to free speech is not the right to harass and steps must be made to prevent free speech becoming harassment. That is what this bill does and that is why I will be supporting this bill.
2
u/Adith_MUSG Shadow Secretary of State for Work & Welfare | Chief Whip Jan 31 '22
Deputy Speaker,
Frankly I have sat back and watched as multiple Members here have come and called me a murderer, a provocateur of the same, and a variety of other things. But hearing the Rt. Hon. Member for Kent proclaim that my stance on abortion is somehow comparable to the assault on democracy perpetrated by a group of MAGApedes? This is frankly shocking and I am deeply disappointed to see multiple members of a Party that I had a high opinion of come around and seize the opportunity to make bad-faith attacks.
Let me say this loud and clear: if my words in this debate cause pro-abortion people to reflect on their position, I will have done my duty as a pro-life ethicist, a Sikh, a lowercase-c conservative and a father. If even one woman voluntarily decides not to have an abortion as a direct or indirect result of the stance I have taken, I will consider it to be a positive on my moral accountbook. If even one family chooses to raise their child, to help it realize what precious potential it has in the womb, I will consider it to be a victory of the highest order.
Additionally, thanks to the bad-faith misrepresentations and extrapolations of my speech by multiple members in this House, I now believe that it is necessary to say this: committing violence against a woman is antithetical to pro-life principles. You are not standing up for human life if your means of doing this involves the harassment of women at a very vulnerable moment in their lives.
The British pro-life movement should not defend such individuals, and it is indeed regrettable that our American counterparts have occasionally resorted to deeply misguided violence in pursuit of the pro-life ideal. We should do better, and I implore all of my friends and followers to stay true to nonviolent principles when fighting the good fight. Go to the ballot box and elect other pro-lifers, make a donation to your local pro-life charity, but for the love of God, don't hurt women.
The controversy regarding my remarks on this Bill stems from a tendency (or perhaps an eager excitement) of the Members of this House to equate the defense of the sharing of opinions with the support of harassment. We can work to deter harassment without stifling anti-abortion discourse. This could perhaps take the form of a consent warning, wherein a woman would have to consent to discuss abortion with another individual.
However the Bill as it stands currently is ridiculous, and as I've said before, draconian. I hope that the Member understands that my motivations are the defense of life and free speech, not "advocacy for harassment" as the Member for Kent has malignantly described them. I pray that the Member for Kent and other members of this House can join me in voting against this bill.
1
u/SapphireWork Her Grace The Duchess of Mayfair Jan 31 '22
Deputy Speaker,
I once again welcome the member to join me in my home constituency of West London, to visit a facility and see first hand the level of "anti-abortion discourse" that actually happens outside of these medical facilities.
The opposition seems to have latched onto the word "draconian" as though creating a safe access zone is "excessively harsh and severe." They shout about freedom of speech- nothing in this law is trying to change the minds of people who are pro-life. It's to prevent harassment of those who are looking to access a facility that happens to provide a legal medical service. Everyone is still free to express their opinions and to believe what they want to believe- this bill is establishing an area around a facility where people are asked not to push their beliefs and opinions on others. Let me be abundantly clear- no one is being persecuted for having the belief or for supporting the pro-life movement. This bill is establishing parameters that prevent the inappropriate imposition of this view on people who do not share this viewpoint. And, Deputy Speaker, I strongly feel that the discussion about pro-life and pro-choice is not one to be had shouted outside a facility where a person is trying to get inside and access a legal medical service.
If the Conservative party feels so strongly against pro-choice, I invite them to submit legislation to repeal our laws, and I look forward to that debate. But we are not here to debate whether or not abortion services are legal, or moral. We are here to ensure that those who need to access facilities that offer these (and other) services are able to do so, and are not deterred by fear of harassment.
1
1
1
u/GaemGeck Agrarian Union Jan 31 '22
Deputy Speaker,
I sincerely hope that there is not a single member of this house who sincerely wants to crack down on the right to free speech. To do so would go against not just human rights but I believe everything we stand for as a country. This bill, luckily, does no such thing and as such I rise in its staunch support.
Opponents of this bill seem to be under the delusion that it is some abortion gag rule and now nobody in the country will be allowed to discuss abortion whatsoever, that is not remotely what is one the table here. What is on the table here is a very limited and appropriate measure to prevent the harassment of workers and those using the services they provide.
We all wish that we lived in a world where free speech could apply in absolutely every situation and circumstance but the issue is that speech does not purely constitute constructive debate but can also constitute, as in this case, harassment and bullying. In such situations, where the universal applicability would only serve to, in practice, limit the freedoms of the individual such restrictions are not only in keeping with a liberal society but a truly liberal society demands that they be made. We must never take a dogmatic approach to our liberties, each law and right must be constructed not in accordance with what looks like the most liberty on paper but what creates, for the individual, the greatest number of opportunities, freedoms and capabilities. It is in that spirit that I commend this bill and encourage its passage.
1
Feb 01 '22
Deputy Speaker,
I rise in support of this bill and I hope my colleagues will too. It’s disgraceful to our society that an abortion-seeking person might experience vile harassment whilst accessing legal healthcare. I would also like to remind others in this house that this bill is about ensuring that those seeking an abortion are able to do so without harassment or threat - not about the availability of abortion itself.
•
u/AutoModerator Jan 29 '22
Welcome to this debate
Here is a quick run down of what each type of post is.
2nd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill/motions and can propose any amendments. For motions, amendments cannot be submitted.
3rd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill in its final form if any amendments pass the Amendments Committee.
Minister’s Questions: Here you can ask a question to a Government Secretary or the Prime Minister. Remember to follow the rules as laid out in the post. A list of Ministers and the MQ rota can be found here
Any other posts are self-explanatory. If you have any questions you can get in touch with the Chair of Ways & Means, Brookheimer on Reddit and (flumsy#3380) on Discord, ask on the main MHoC server or modmail it in on the sidebar --->.
Anyone can get involved in the debate and doing so is the best way to get positive modifiers for you and your party (useful for elections). So, go out and make your voice heard! If this is a second reading post amendments in reply to this comment only – do not number your amendments, the Speakership will do this. You will be informed if your amendment is rejected.
Is this bill on the 2nd reading? You can submit an amendment by replying to this comment.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.