I never thought that I would ever hear a live mash-up of Ave Maria and Ten Green Bottles Hanging on the Wall, but my first ever reporting job proved me wrong. It was a Friday night, about 12 years ago and my editor had sent me to Bedford Square, Soho to report on a hotly anticipated stand-off between the pro-life and pro-choice lobby.

It was approaching Easter time. For the whole of Lent a new religious movement – 40 Days For Life – was gaining attention for holding prayer vigils outside a Marie Stopes Clinic in central London. The pro-choice lobby claimed it was wrong and intimidating for distressed woman to be faced with a crowd of people when entering an abortion clinic, while 40 Days insisted their vigils were peaceful; all they wanted to do was potentially help any woman, facing a crisis pregnancy.

But when allegations began to circle that women were being filmed entering the clinic, (an action which 40 Days distanced itself from), it was decided that when the faithful gathered on Friday evening for their standard vigil, a huge pro-choice, counter demonstration, would be ready for them. So that’s how I found myself in a highly implausible situation, hovering in the centre of Bedford Square, with one side singing Marian hymns, and the other half chanting nursery rhymes.

The pro-choice lobby has proven the most persuasive in this debate. Starting from yesterday, it will be illegal for “anyone to do anything that intentionally or recklessly influences someone’s decision to use abortion services, obstructs them, or causes harassment or distress to someone using or working at these premises,” the Home Office website explains. “The law will apply within a 150-metre radius of the abortion service provider.  Anyone found guilty of breaking the law will face an unlimited fine.”

The question which now remains is how exactly will this new law be enforced? In the most extreme scenario, can someone who is silently praying within 150m of an abortion clinic be convicted? At the time of writing, this question has not been clearly answered by the Home Office or the College of Policing and Crown Prosecution.

However, we now know about the case of Adam Smith-Connor who was convicted and fined earlier this month for silently praying within a ‘buffer zone’ in Bournemouth. In the footage available documenting this incident, even the police officer questioning Adam seems slightly embarrassed when she asks him, ‘what’s the nature of your prayer?’

If silent prayer is not even allowed in the vicinity of an abortion clinic, then arguably the pro-choice side has won. But it might prove a Pyrrhic victory.

First, abortion advocates have committed the political equivalent of calling the fire brigade to put out a candle. On the night of that infamous protest, my job title was Associate Editor of the Catholic Herald; my natural sympathies were obvious and still are. But whatever your view on abortion, there was one side exhibiting an outpouring of aggression, and they weren’t the ones quietly clutching Rosaries. If you still won’t take my word for it, a 2018 Home Office Review found that ‘predominantly, anti-abortion activities are more passive in nature. The main activities reported to us that take place during protests include praying, displaying banners and handing out leaflets. There were relatively few reports of the more aggressive activities described.’

We also need to remember the women who have spoken out against this legislation and not just those who support it. The Be Here For Me Campaign is made up of a number of women who received help from pro-life organisations outside abortion clinics, and would not wish other women to be denied similar support. Personally, I have often felt some unease about the efficacy and prudence of these vigils, but the Be Here Campaign, has given me pause for thought.

This is why the legislation unleashed yesterday is disproportionate and unnecessary. Thankfully, we already have laws designed to protect women from harassment and intimidation. We do not need to wander into such illiberal territory where a father silently praying for his deceased unborn son, faces police interrogation, trial and conviction. We can expect many more similar cases from now on, which will only embarrass supporters of this legislation further, and risks rendering their victory hollow.

Pro-life protests are not going anywhere either. I asked Robert Colquhoun of 40 Days for Life, what they will do now this law has come into force. “We keep calm and carry on,” he replied. “40 Days for Life will continue to do prayer vigils outside the buffer signs in the United Kingdom which is still legal after the introduction of the Public Order Act. We hope not to lose a single campaign and increase and expand our presence and ministry.”

Where will this end? Will buffer zones extend further and further until any form of pro-life witness is expunged altogether? How many arrests before leaders perform an emergency stop, on this high-speed train to tyranny?