America Takes a Stand for the Rights of Western Christians

The U.S. State Department has once again sent the United Kingdom a clear warning: the ongoing persecution and prosecution of praying pro-lifers will not be tolerated. Their annual “United Kingdom 2024 Human Rights Report” opens with an ominous conclusion: “The human rights situation worsened in the United Kingdom during the year.”

The report noted “specific areas of concern, including … ‘Safe Access Zones’ (limiting speech rights around abortion clinics). These restrictions on freedom of speech could include prohibitions on efforts to influence others when inside a restricted area, even through prayer or silent protests.” The stark rise in antisemitism is also cited.

The U.S. State Department specifically noted the case of British veteran Adam Smith-Connor, who was convicted and fined £9,000 for praying silently near a clinic in Bournemouth (Alliance Defending Freedom International is currently appealing his case). Vice President JD Vance also mentioned Smith-Connor’s case in his February speech at the Munich Security Council, where he articulated similar concerns about the collapse of free speech in the United Kingdom.

The report highlights the growing consternation of the Trump administration with the ongoing prosecution of pro-lifers in general. The Telegraph noted that the White House “intervened to support Livia Tossici-Bolt, a 64-year-old woman in Bournemouth who was convicted for protesting outside a clinic in April,” and that “the U.S. said it was monitoring the case and emphasized the importance of free speech and religious liberty.”

“The United States is still monitoring many ‘buffer zone’ cases in the UK, as well as other acts of censorship throughout Europe,” a spokesman for the U.S. State Department said. “The UK’s persecution of silent prayer represents not only an egregious violation of the fundamental right to free speech and religious liberty, but also a concerning departure from the shared values that ought to underpin U.S.-UK relations. It is common sense that standing silently and offering consensual conversation does not constitute harm.”

In March, the Trump administration sent a team of diplomats from the U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to meet with five pro-lifers arrested for silent prayer, including Adam Smith-Connor; Catholic priest Fr. Sean Gough; Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, who recently discovered she is under investigation for a third time; Livia Tossici-Bolt; and Rose Docherty, the 74-year-old grandmother arrested outside Glasgow’s Queen Elizabeth University Hospital.

Rose Docherty was finally cleared by a Scottish court on August 13th and will face no further action from prosecutors, and a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department told the Telegraph, “We applaud Scotland’s sensible decision to refrain from further legal action against Rose Docherty. The United States stands with all those fighting for free speech and religious liberty.” Docherty had been silently holding a sign reading: “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.” 

There has, predictably, been much criticism of the Trump administration’s advocacy for prosecuted pro-lifers; indeed, it is extraordinary for an elderly pro-life woman to hear that the government of the world’s reigning superpower is interested in her case and that the “United States stands” with her, especially when so few others will.

But it is common practice for governments to advocate for persecuted dissidents in other countries; progressive regimes have been especially interested in defending LGBT activists. What is uncommon is that a U.S. administration is taking interest in the rights of persecuted and prosecuted Christians in the West. Even though Christians are now a minority in the UK while LGBT activists still cosplay as victims, the progressive establishment narrative still treats traditional Christians as dominant oppressors and their reigning ideological opponents as the underdog. 

America’s interest in the actual underdog reveals the much-denied reality and forces profoundly uncomfortable questions for the ruling classes—and it is about time, too.