Abstract
Abortion lies at the centre of significant moral and political disagreement. This disagreement has led to court decisions, parliamentary debates, and academic writings. It has also led to demonstrations concerning abortion, some more disruptive and some less so. The issue before the UK Supreme Court in Re Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland—Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill1 arises in this context. The court held unanimously that the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill (the Bill)—which implements ‘“safe access zones” adjacent to the premises where such services are provided, within which specified types of behaviour are prohibited’2—constitutes a proportionate interference with Articles 9–11 European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR), and is accordingly lawful.3 This comment critically examines the court’s reasoning. The investigation will proceed as follows: we will (i) summarise the relevant facts and ruling in AG; (ii) cast doubt on the empirical foundations underlying the court’s analysis; and (iii) further criticise the court’s legal analysis.4 The overarching theme is that the court’s proportionality analysis is unsatisfactory, in both its empirical and legal aspects.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
