The 3 - August 24, 2025

By now, you may be familiar with a woman in the U.K. named Isabel Vaughan-Spruce.  She has been exonerated twice on charges that she prayed in public, violating ordiances prohibiting the practice, even silently.  The Christian Post reported:

In 2023, Vaughan-Spruce, a charitable volunteer who has supported mothers in crisis pregnancies for two decades, was arrested for praying within a “buffer zone” created by a Public Spaces Protection Order that prohibited “expressions of approval or disapproval” of abortion. The incident occurred when the abortion facility was closed.

Prosecutors offered no evidence to proceed, and she was acquitted.

Weeks after the acquittal, she was arrested again at the same location, also for silently praying. That investigation lasted several months. In August 2024, she successfully challenged the two arrests and received a settlement of £13,000 (roughly $17,500) from West Midlands Police.

Despite that outcome, Vaughan-Spruce has continued to pray near the facility on a weekly basis. She has said her actions have remained the same for 20 years, consisting of standing silently and praying.

Now, comes the announcement that Isabel may be in trouble yet again for her prayer practices.  That Christian Post article related: "West Midlands Police in central England confirmed that there is an active investigation into Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, who has been engaging in silent prayer on a public street near an abortion facility in Birmingham, ADF International reported."  The article stated that officers have been seen monitoring her behavior, and that she has filed a complaint with local law enforcement, claiming harassment. West Midlands Police admits that officials are awaiting word from the Crown Protection Service on "how to proceed" against Vaughan-Spruce. 

While two large pharmacy chains have laid the groundwork for distributing the abortion pill, in which women can terminate the life of their unborn child at home without a doctor's supervision; a procedure that presents risks to the prospective mother, as well, a large warehouse retailer has turned down the opportunity.

The Hill website notes that "...the company told Reuters that the decision was made due to a lack of demand since patients typically receive the drug from their health care provider."  The article also stated:

Some religious groups and anti-abortion activists praised Costco’s decision, which was first reported by Bloomberg.  

“We applaud Costco for doing the right thing by its shareholders and resisting activist calls to sell abortion drugs,” wrote Michael Ross, legal counsel for the conservative religious coalition Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

The Hill piece notes that "CVS and Walgreens announced last year they had received certification to start dispensing the drug in states where abortion is legal, following a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy change that made it easier for pharmacies to distribute mifepristone in person or in the mail."

After the New York Comptroller sent letters to retailers encouraging them to carry the abortion pill, religious groups, including ADF, contacted the retailers "urging them to resist political pressure to provide abortion medication at their pharmacy locations."

A firefighter in Arkansas lost his job because he made a social media post consistent with his pro-life perspective.  After he sued Forrest City, his case ended up before a federal appeals court, which has ruled that his case can proceed.

Alliance Defending Freedom, on its media website, featured a quote from Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer, in which he said, “All Americans should be free to express viewpoints and ideas without fear of government punishment. When the government decides which topics are appropriate for debate, we all lose..."

ADF noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit stated in its ruling, “The problem is that there was no showing that Melton’s post had an impact on the fire department itself,” adding, “No current firefighter complained or confronted him about it. Nor did any co-worker or supervisor refuse to work with him. Granting summary judgment based on such ‘vague and conclusory’ concerns, without more, runs the risk of constitutionalizing a heckler’s veto.”