The University of Manchester’s Pro-Life Society

On 11^th January, the University of Manchester’s Students’ Union officially affiliated its Pro-Life society. This has sparked debate over where the line should be drawn between free speech and the infringements of others’ rights, and the extent to which the University should, or can, intervene or take responsibility.

With only three named committee members (a fourth has now removed themselves from the Instagram post), the society has claimed it is not ‘anti-abortion’ but is ‘pro-life’, using the tagline ‘supporting the dignity of every human life’ to promote its message. On its website, the society states that it wishes to create a ‘pro-life culture on campus’, and claims to consider other threats to life, such as assisted suicide and deaths caused by poverty.

Unsurprisingly, the society has sparked outrage nationally, resulting in a petition to the University of Manchester Students’ Union to dissolve the society, which has now reached over 18,000 signatures. However, whilst this petition effectively symbolises the widespread opposition to the society and its message, it is likely to lead to no tangible outcome. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act of 2023 outlines that universities have a responsibility to promote freedom of speech and expression on their campuses, meaning they are legally not able to prohibit a society from affiliating with the student union because of their beliefs.

A second year linguistics student described feeling as though she was in a ‘Margaret Atwood novel’ when she saw the society had been established, and that she believed the Students’ Union are ‘directly enabling misogynistic hate speech.’ Many in opposition to the society believe it will further stigmatise abortion on campus, making it more difficult to voice their opinion on the topic, whilst also posing a risk to women’s safety.

The society’s first official meeting was held on the evening of the 1^st March, and a group of around 250 protesters formed outside to exhibit their opposition to the society. Protestors also described their anger at the society having a male president and a male treasurer, despite largely being focused on an issue that largely affects women. 17 of the 23 attendees were male, as seen an Instagram post that has since been deleted, seemingly along with the society’s whole account.

This poses the question: has the society disbanded, or are they just avoiding the spotlight? They have caused a media controversy, as well as sparking legal questions over freedom of speech, so it will be intriguing to see how this plays out.