Freedom of Speech in the UK is Very Much Under Threat
Sara Spencer's experience serves as counterevidence to Keir Starmer’s claims, as her career was nearly ended over a legally-protected pro-life post.
by Sara Spencer
March 8, 2025
Three weeks ago, Vice President J.D. Vance gave a landmark address about free speech in Europe, and Britain in particular. Last week, when Keir Starmer visited Washington, DC, Vance raised his concerns more directly with the prime minister about “infringements on free speech… that affect American technology companies and by extension American citizens.”
Starmer was quick to dismiss the critique, insisting that:
We’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom and will last for a very long time… certainly, we wouldn’t reach across US citizens and we don’t and that’s absolutely right.
Starmer is mistaken, and I can say that with confidence as a US citizen living in the United Kingdom, where my freedom of speech has been compromised. I moved to Scotland from Southern California, aged twenty-two. After several years spent caring full-time for my three small children, I enthusiastically enrolled in a midwifery course at Edinburgh Napier University. Much of my learning would take place on the job, at a hospital under the health board “NHS Fife.”
Not long into my studies, in April 2024, I noticed someone had posted the following query on a Facebook group that I had joined, “The Secret Community for Midwives in the Making”:
Do midwives have anything to do with abortions, and can they refuse to take part in carrying them out because of their beliefs?
Eager to support, I responded in the comments section:
Yes midwives do provide abortions.
And yes, you have the right to refuse to take part. The law protects your statutory right of conscientious objection.
You do not need to provide abortion care if you object to abortion.
I pointed the poster to paragraph 4.4 of our professional code, which indicates the appropriate steps to transfer care if and when conscientious objections arise.
Other members of the group, reasonably enough, inquired further into my views. Knowing that one of the rules of the Facebook group required members “to respect religious and cultural rights, especially in the context of midwifery,” and that the Nursing & Midwifery Council expects midwifery registrants to “reflect on and debate topics including those that are seen to be challenging or contentious,” I felt comfortable to delve further into the discussion.
In one comment I summarized my beliefs:
My moral beliefs include 1) a fetus is a child and 2) it is wrong to kill children, [therefore] there is no circumstance in which I would not object to abortion (killing a child).
This is, of course, just the basic pro-life position. Anticipating some disapproval, I nevertheless thought it would at least be considered an understandable view to hold; I am, after all, a midwife-in-training, committed to caring for mothers and their babies throughout pregnancy. Yet the response from my fellow students told a different story. “Don’t be a midwife,” said one. And another: “I feel for any woman coming into your care… . Please find a different career.”
Blowback can be disheartening, but criticism is a fair and reasonable corollary of free speech. Yet I was not expecting to face institutional punishment for respectfully debating abortion and voicing the grounds for my conscientious objection. That expectation proved naïve when, a week later, I was summoned to speak with my line manager at my work placement.
She sternly informed me she had received complaints from multiple people regarding comments I had made on social media. She said she didn’t need to indicate precisely which comments, for, “You know what you wrote.” She then said she would “escalate the matter to [my] university.” A “fitness to practice investigation” was initiated to determine the merits of the complaints lodged against me. Despite my university’s assurance I could continue placement during the investigation, the health board refused to support my learning and had me suspended.
I was heartbroken. I could not believe I was being targeted and ostracised for my personal, legally protected beliefs, which I had respectfully expressed online. I was terrified that my chance at a midwifery career was to be taken from me just as I was getting started.
My experience in the UK is sadly not unique. People with unpopular views are frequently punished for expressing their thoughts. Despite freedom of speech being protected in both international and domestic law, several pro-life individuals have faced trial for just offering a conversation near an abortion facility — or worse, have been convicted for merely praying in their head. Across British institutions — from universities, to health boards, to school and beyond — the ability to freely discuss topics of societal significance is being chilled by an increasingly censorial culture.
I painstakingly prepared my defense. I reached out to other health professionals with similar views to mine, and found legal support from ADF International. During the hearing, I appealed to legislative and professional policies which affirm the right of medical professionals both to personally and publicly object to abortion. Soon after, I received good news: the officer ruled that I had no case to answer — the clearest vindication I could hope for.
NHS Fife, on the other hand, were less than pleased. They rejected the outcome of my investigation and were not prepared to accept me back, demanding an explanation for the decision. After some behind-the-scenes discussions to which I have never been privy, they eventually relented, allowing me to continue my training on the ward. To this day, they have never acknowledged what happened to me — nor accepted that they were wrong to infringe upon my basic freedom of expression.
I’m pushing for that acknowledgement of my rights, with support from ADF International, but my painful ordeal demonstrates a much wider chasm than Keir Starmer allows between the free speech protections afforded in America and those in Britain. Starmer seemed confident that Britain would have free speech for a “very, very long time” and that the rights of Americans to speak freely would not be infringed.
I must present my experience as counterevidence to Starmer’s claims: freedom of speech in the UK is in fact very, very under threat.
— This essay originally appeared at The Spectator.
See Also:
Recent Articles:
 |
|
Free speech is for conservatives too, not just people who agree with Starmer.
I am so sorry for what you have endured. Hopefully, there are forces in the UK who will be able to overcome those who are censoring citizens. Thank you for sharing.