74-Year-Old Scottish Woman Arrested for Protesting Near Abortion Provider
Rose Docherty was arrested over her sign, which read: "Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want."

A 74-year-old Scottish woman was arrested for standing near a hospital that performs abortions with a sign that read: "Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want." The woman's protest was in violation of an "exclusion zone" law, which bans anti-abortion protests or prayer vigils within a 200-meter radius of a facility that provides abortions.
"I was approaching no one on that day. I wasn't calling out. I was standing quietly by the roadside," Rose Docherty, told The Free Press reporter Madeline Kearns. "I am worried about a society that's willing to lock up a 74-year-old grandmother for offering consensual conversation." Docherty says she held the sign for about 90 minutes before two police officers approached, handcuffed her, and took her to the police station where she was fingerprinted, swabbed for DNA, and had a mugshot taken.
"It was a surreal experience," Docherty told Kearns. "I just thought, I'm a 74-year-old elderly woman—what are you afraid of that you feel that you want to handcuff me?" If Docherty is convicted, she could face a fine of up to £10,000 (about $12,889).
Last month, Vice President J.D. Vance singled out Scotland's anti-abortion protest law in a speech highlighting threats to free speech in Europe. "Just a few months ago the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so-called 'safe access zones,' warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law," Vance said at the Munich Security Conference.
However, Vance's comments appear to have exaggerated the government's actual directive. While not explicitly going after silent prayer in a private home, a Scottish government letter obtained by The Times still leaves plenty of room for concern. The letter states that "activities within a private place (such as a house) within the area between the protected premises and the boundary or zone could be an offence if they can be seen or heard within the zone and are done intentionally or recklessly."
This isn't the first time individuals have been punished in Great Britain for expressing their pro-life views. Across Britain, people violating similar laws designed to create free-speech carveouts around abortion clinics have been arrested not just for protesting—but for simply praying in their own heads. Last year, Adam Smith-Conor was convicted on criminal charges for praying silently near a Bournemouth abortion clinic. In 2022, police arrested Isabel Vaughan-Spruce for praying silently near an abortion clinic in Birmingham. The same year, a local priest was arrested for holding a sign near an abortion clinic reading "Praying for Freedom of Speech." He faced a second charge for parking his car—which had a bumper sticker reading "Unborn Lives Matter" on it—inside the censorship zone.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
However, Vance's comments [that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law] appear to have exaggerated the government's actual directive. While not explicitly going after silent prayer in a private home, a Scottish government letter obtained by The Times still leaves plenty of room for concern. The letter states that "activities within a private place (such as a house) within the area between the protected premises and the boundary or zone could be an offence if they can be seen or heard within the zone and are done intentionally or recklessly."
So, if a person within a Scottish home is seen from the street silently praying and such home is within an exclusion zone, that person may be arrested for said prayer being within an exclusion zone. Where is the exaggeration?
It's not that off. Protesting / praying within your home where you can be seen from the street is not functionally different than wanking in your home where you can be seen from the street. The situation is the same, only the activity is different. And if you want privacy to do whatever you want, close the curtains and do whatever it is you're doing to your heart's content.
Or don't chose to live in Scotland, I suppose.
>>don't chose to live in Scotland
are they still allowed to leave?
Any Scots who valued their freedom of speech or freedom to do just about anything left long ago. A number of them settled in Appalachia.
"It's not that off. Protesting / praying within your home where you can be seen from the street is not functionally different than wanking in your home where you can be seen from the street. "
What the actual fuck? I thought chemjeff was the dumbest person on Earth but you just unseated him.
Apparently he prays with his pants down.
Imagine being so morally corrupted that you equate being seen praying to being seen masterbating.
This comment perfectly encapsulates why we need a national divorce.
They are both time consuming activities that makes the person doing it feel better for a brief period of time, but ultimately serves no real world purpose to anyone or anything else. Both are better done privately, both are time wasted that could be better spent doing almost anything else, and both are regarded as mental pacifiers for people with pent up frustrations that have no other outlet.
haha nice parallel
There is, of course, the minor difference that public masturbation is a crime against public order and public prayer is not.
Yet.
I mean, apparently it is in Scotland...
Ahhh, grasshopper, you are naive in the wiles of journalism.
See? JD Vance said "distributing letters" while The Times merely "obtained" a government letter. Now you or I might think that a letter must be distributed before being obtained, but we are obviously not experts, like journalist Emma Camp, who has written extensively and professionally on deep matters like FAFSA.
Yeah. I'm not seeing where JD exaggerated anything. Emma's "gotcha" seems to be, at worst, verifying everything JD said.
Europe no longer shares our fundamental values. We need to reconsider our ties to that shithole of a continent.
JD Vance is wrong about Reason writing about JD Vance being wrong.
Because legal standards that give that much discretion to law enforcement are never exploited by bad actors in law enforcement.
The fact that the law can reasonably be interpreted to make someone praying in their home a criminal is a problem. The only thing allegedly exaggerated is that this was the intent behind how the law is worded, which I would take denial of that intent with some skepticism.
We talk about praying but imagine you want to have a group over to discuss anything anti-abortion inside your residence, even with the doors shut and curtains drawn, and any nosy/pro-abortion neighbor gets wind and can report you. But feel free to have any pro-abortion demonstrations if you please.
You don't need to be seen from outside.
Someone inside can see you and the activities are 'between the protected premises and the boundary zone'.
Round-head Man Bad.
Where is the exaggeration?
That they might've lost the message. They didn't lose the message at all. They just wondered to themselves out loud "Is this having any effect at all?" while taking breaths between shrieks of idiocy.
Oh my holy fuck. This is like hiking in the Rockies. Every time I think we've reached peak stupid, I look across the valley and see another article by Emmadear or Sullum or Boehm that's about 1,000 feet more retarded than the last one.
So much this. I've given up on thinking they've gotten as dumb as they're going to. Every previous time I've thought that, they've proved me wrong.
>>While not explicitly going after silent prayer in a private home
speechless.
UK is truly a lost cause.
"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning."
Catherine Aird
“UK is truly a lost cause.”
So is Emma.
The people mostly peacefully burning shit down don't carry membership cards and are really more of an idea that the 1A, which only covers speech and doesn't mention religion, is supposed to protect. But the UK law doesn't explicitly say "Go after silent prayer in a private home." so, really, there's no criticism to be had by an American. Just BOAF SIDEZ of an irrelevant cultural divide (and Don't Say Gay in Florida!).
silent prayer ... speechless ... I see now exactly where I missed.
"Rose Docherty was arrested over her sign, which read: "Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want."
Hitler, Stalin and Mao would be so proud of the totalitarian oppressors in Scotland.
They might say "Whoa, pump the brakes a bit there, Scotsfolks"
How has "Scotzis" not caught on yet?
You may well have just coined it. And I'm gonna take it and run with it.
With my blessing. Go forth and spread the good word.
Yet this society is the one Camp thinks we should be breaking our backs to protect and obey.
>However, Vance's comments appear to have exaggerated the government's actual directive. While not explicitly going after silent prayer in a private home, a Scottish government letter obtained by The Times still leaves plenty of room for concern. The letter states that "activities within a private place (such as a house) within the area between the protected premises and the boundary or zone could be an offence if they can be seen or heard within the zone and are done intentionally or recklessly."
This is like Lancaster's stupid article.
You say Vance is exaggerating - and them immediately confirm what he said.
"Reason"
The joke's on us. All Reason articles are written by "Artificial Intelligence". Pun fully intended.
This is like Lancaster's stupid article.
Yeah. The "lost the message" post with all the "JD Vance was wrong" sentiment above was because this is like the "JD Vance didn't actually *see* any immigrants eat any cats in Ohio, so *he* doesn't know whether it happened or not." and the "Trump said you need a driver's license to buy groceries, here's 10 reasons why he's wrong." self-inflicted stupidity.
Anybody else reading about the UK considering enshrining a two-tiered justice system into law? Where your skin color will have impact on what kind of punishment you receive?
I am pissed at the Tories for being a shit as they are because they brought upon Labour who are hyper shit
The UK has 50 political parties - and they're all the same party.
The idea that our 'two party system' causes 'the uniparty' is countered by the UK - where the 'conservatives' exist to 'conserve' the gains by the Far Left. Just as here in the US.
Somebody needs to sap that fucking skell and teach her some respect - right AT(f)?
I'm just glad the Scottish police got their country's herion problem solved. I mean they must not have any thefts in Scotland to investigate if they can send two bobbies to arrest a little old lady.
"They can never take our...wait, they just did. Fuck."
https://x.com/LoisMcLatch/status/1894434155439563128
“Depends on who’s walking by”
This from the administration that wants to ban all protests...
What?
Here's the question nobody asks:
Why?
Why would the State go to these lengths for, of all things, abortion? Is abortion so indefensible on its face, that it cannot be allowed to suffer even the most silent of criticism or rebuke lest its moral house of cards fall? Are those seeking to commit abortion in such a state of fragility that they cannot weather anyone that disagrees with them? Is the State actively (if only tacitly) trying to encourage committing abortion, and if so why?
It's not like they're taking these kinds of steps with climate change or LGBT Pedo or Ukraine - it's just with abortion.
Has the ability to commit abortion become a de facto State Religion at this point? And if so, why?
Yes, Emma, clearly a horrible abuse of citizens by government.
If you had a sign near an abortion clinic that said "We should have more abortions, esp of Blacks" --- would you be arrested? Probably not because it is only re-stating a fact
black women are 5 times
more likely to have an abortion than white
women. A recent study released by
Protecting Black Life, an outreach of Life
Issues Institute concluded that, “79% of
Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion
facilities are strategically located within
walking distance of African and/or
Hispanic communities.”
AND
“Since the number of current living blacks
(in the U.S.) is 31 million, the missing 10 million represents
an enormous loss for, without abortion, America’s black
community would now number 41 million persons. It would
be 35 percent larger than it is currently. Abortion has swept
through the black community cutting down every fourth
member.
Roe v Wade even used that very line of argument , we need to continue killing more Black babies and reducing the size of the Black community. A hideous line of argument
Two Black public intellectuals show you whiy Roe was legalized killing of Blacks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNYTDv2PLc4
Or you could have no sign whatsoever, mind your own business, and everybody is better off for it.