The first speaker recounted her gratitude for being talked out of an #abortion at the gate to the clinic.

She used strongly emotive language to describe her situation at the time:
...Single
...Abandoned
...Facing Unemployment
...No financial/emotional support

Then, she was given a leaflet by one of the protestors and she decided not to have an abortion. She didn't explain how it fixed all her problems and made it possible for her to continue her pregnancy.

What she didn't say was that the protest group paid for her to continue her pregnancy - something we imagine would not be possible for them to do in every case.

She mentioned the payment in the anti-bufferzone article she wrote for The Critic in 2009. We won't provide a URL to the site, but you should find it fairly easily if you want to fact-check.

We are of course pleased that the speaker managed to have the child she wanted. But just because protest groups helped her, it doesn't mean the majority of women attending a clinic would be pleased to see them outside it.

And while we applaud anyone giving financial help to pregnant women, we do wonder why any good faith organisation would initiate this at an abortion clinic, where surely the vast majority will not be in need of pregnancy assistance - as they're having an abortion?

The speaker argues that anti-abortion protest should be allowed because it's patronising to assume women can't make up their own minds.

We would argue that, by the time they are at the clinic, they already have.

It's almost as though the women are secondary to the desire of the protestors to stop the abortion. To decide a woman's future for her. And in some cases, to offer her nothing but abuse.