IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v30y2022i3p509-533..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fixed Buffer Zone Legislation: A Proportionate Response to Demonstrations Outside Abortion Clinics in England and Wales?

Author

Listed:
  • Emily Ottley

Abstract

There is concern that the recent increase in demonstrations outside abortion clinics in England and Wales may have a detrimental impact on clinic-users’ access to abortion services. Parliament could respond to this concern by passing legislation that implements fixed buffer zones around all clinics providing abortion services in England and Wales. This would make it an offence to engage in prohibited behaviour (as defined by the legislation) within a specified area around abortion clinics. Such legislation may be challenged, however, on the basis that it interferes with the rights afforded to demonstrators by Articles 9, 10, and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This article examines the proportionality of fixed buffer zone legislation, which has not yet been considered by the European Court of Human Rights nor the UK Supreme Court. Two relationships are considered: first, the relationship between the aims of the measures and the means to achieve those aims; second, the relationship between the competing interests of demonstrators opposing abortion and clinic-users seeking an abortion. This article shows that fixed buffer zone legislation can be proportionate. Consequently, the ECHR is no impediment to the enactment of fixed buffer zone legislation in England and Wales.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily Ottley, 2022. "Fixed Buffer Zone Legislation: A Proportionate Response to Demonstrations Outside Abortion Clinics in England and Wales?," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 509-533.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:30:y:2022:i:3:p:509-533.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwac019
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:30:y:2022:i:3:p:509-533.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.