IT'S certainly more rational news than Jacob-Rees Mogg's recent comments about the "cult of death" of abortion.

Those in favour have roundly hailed the decision of the UK Supreme Court on legislation for buffer zones in Northern Ireland. "A truly historic day" for reproductive rights, the Scottish Greens said, given the precedent it sets for MSP Gillian Mackay's bill at Holyrood, which looks to introduce a similar ban in Scotland.

The court unanimously supported the legality of the bill, which had been introduced by former Green MLA Clare Bailey but referred to the Supreme Court following a challenge by anti-abortion campaigners.

Buffer zones are designed to give the right to access essential medical services without harassment, a problem that has been proliferating over the past few years, particularly since the interference of American group 40 Days For Life.

In this global pushback on women's rights, women must dig their heels in – and they have been trying to, on this issue, for years. So all praise to the grassroots campaigners who formed Back Off Scotland who have succeeded where multiple others failed. There have been rumblings about anti-abortion protests at hospitals for a number of years but it is those activists who have almost single-handedly pushed buffer zones to the top of the media and political agendas and kept it there.

This is despite constant hurdles, not least initial reluctance from within the Scottish Government. Women's minister Maree Todd's initial position was anti-buffer zone. Early in the campaign she was reported to have told activists that government-level legislation was "disproportionate" to the issue.

This has been a game of pass-the-parcel with a prize no one wanted. Requests were made to councils to set up buffer zones at a local level but local authorities refused to act. Had they acted, though, would have created a patchwork of provision across the country with women afforded greater or lesser level of dignity depending on which council boundary they live within.

Cosla, the council umbrella body, said no thank you to getting involved and backed away with its hands up.

Political action at local level began in 2018 both in Glasgow and Edinburgh. In Glasgow councillor Elaine McSporran proposed a motion aimed at preventing "harassing" and "intimidating" protests outside healthcare facilities. Despite cross-party support it went nowhere.

In the capital councillor Claire Miller asked officials to introduce buffer zones outside the Chalmers Centre as the numbers of so-called vigils began to grow but the attempt, again, went nowhere.

In London, also in 2018, following local campaigning, Ealing Council became the first local authority in the UK to introduce buffer zones, using anti-social behaviour laws to do so.

Most recently, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council introduced an extensive buffer zone – a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) – around a clinic in Dorset to prevent the harassment of service users and staff.

Six streets around Bournemouth's British Pregnancy Advice Service will be in force five days a week for 12 hours a day, initially for three years. Anyone in contravention - and this includes photographing, protesting, harassing or intimidating those entering the service - will face a fine or conviction at a magistrate court.

The intimidation experienced by staff and service users there sounds like an escalation of that faced by women and workers in Scotland: baby clothes hung on a hedge, a staff member followed by a person in a monk's cassock, women followed into the clinic. But this is a very small mercy for which to be thankful.

The PSPO also covers “holding vigils where members audibly pray, recite scripture, genuflect, sprinkle holy water on the ground or cross themselves" if a service user is passing.

A spokesperson for the council said it had tried to find a "negotiated position" that could be agreed to by all involved but "this was unsuccessful", which is surely a surprise to no one.

A consultation, such as that undertaken in Scotland, showed strength of support for the buffer zone.

Bodily autonomy free from intimidation or harassment doesn't seem a huge ask but anti-abortion activists insist they must protest near to the clinics for their protests – they prefer "vigils" – to be effective.

The maternity ward of a hospital sees many patients for many reasons, ditto clinics such as Glasgow's Sandyford health centre. It's such a scattergun approach but collateral damage doesn't seem to particularly concern activists.

I appreciate that activist is not the preferred word but an activist is one who supports actions such as public protest in order to make change in society. That's a clear descriptor for these people.

The situation in Northern Ireland differs from the rest of the UK. Abortion was legalised in the country only two short years ago and only in limited circumstances, but on the issue of buffer zones, Stormont wasted no time in moving to pass legislation, one of the final things the Northern Ireland Assembly achieved before being suspended.

In Northern Ireland the penalty for breaking this law is a £500 fine. In Bournemouth the penalty is a far more modest £100 fixed penalty notice. It will be interesting to see what effect this has, given the backing given by wealthy churches to protestors. A few hundred quid seems a very mild deterrent to those who believe they are carrying out life-saving work.

What price a soul?

Despite overwhelming welcome from campaigners for the North Ireland decision, hopes for an accelerated resolution in Scotland remain unlikely.

Plans for Scotland are in the very early days and draft legislation is still to be formally drafted. Given the Scottish Government's sullied reputation in that area, we have to hope for more haste, less speed.

The Supreme Court case is not about buffer zones themselves but about the premise of the legislation passed by Stormont. The judgement finds that it is not reasonable to stand close to healthcare centres and that doing so is not an issue of free speech, nor is it covered by the right to protest.

Any legislation passed by the Scottish Government will undoubtedly be subject to legal challenge by religious groups that wish to maintain the ability to be immediately adjacent to healthcare facilities, similar to the challenge to the ill-fated named person legislation.

Politicians and civil servants would do well to look at Northern Ireland in creating a bill that is as robust against legal challenge as possible. The issue of penalty for contravention of the new legislation is also a careful issue for consideration.

"I look forward," Mackay said, "To the day when my Bill will end such shameful scenes for good." The feeling, for many, is mutual, making it all the more vital to get this right.

Read more by Catriona Stewart: