to not understand what's wrong with Dorries' amendments?

[takingbackmonday]

First off I am pro-choice.

This is not partisan and I'm looking for info not a fight.

From my limited understanding it appears that the amendments would allow not force women to seek independent counselling when having an abortion. Surely this is a good thing when many abortion clinics/charities are paid per abortion?

Just to repeat, I'm interested in the problem not saying I support or do not support this. I don't like the government getting involved with this but then I disagree with most the ways in which the government intrudes on our lives and this seems a rather well-meant attempt...

Mucked up the link

I have had 2 experiences of termination and both were very different, and I was very young and naive (stupid), so had no idea why they were so different at the time.

The 1st time I went to the family planning clinic and was referred to my local NHS hospital for the procedure within a few days.

The second time I went to my GP who said I had to go to a clinic 20 miles away, where I had to pay for the privilege of being talked to like an idiot and having a blood test. Only to be sent a week later to another clinic 40 miles away for the procedure where they were at least a bit nicer, but it cost me hundreds.

It turns out the first clinic's purpose was to talk me out of it.

The GP could have easily sent me to the local NHS hospital and chose not to.

I challenged her on this later and she said she had no idea that was what happened at that 1st clinic, she said she thought that the procedure was carried out there.

Hopefully nothing like this goes on any more, but it made a huge difference to me; I was left with debt, I had great difficulty travelling. (am always extremely sick when pregnant, not great for train travel)

I also wanted to keep my situation private, very hard in a shared house when you are throwing up all the time, the extra week certainly did not help this. Not to mention the psychological aspect of the thing.

When someone has made the decision, it's not fair to make them wait, it's cruel. I don't think anyone does it lightly, yes counsel them to ensure they have not been pressured into it or something and of course talk to them about contraception and taking care of themselves. But lecturing them about the alternatives and doing this in a separate venue, causing more inconvenience and delay is not helping anyone.

Dorries has the stated aim of preventing women from having abortions. She tabled a motion to reduce the limit on abortion from 24 to 20 weeks a while ago. She wants women to be subjected to both delays in receiving terminations and also biased, pro-life 'counselling' in the hopes that this will make 60,000 women a year change their minds about termination and continue with the pregnancy.

This is a religious, pro-life politician who hopes to reduce womens' access to safe and legal termination by any means necessary. She is not to be trusted. She does not have womens' interests at heart, and nor do the policies she is proposing.

From what I read this morning she wishes to bring the abortion limit down to 20 weeks from 24. Enough stories in the media these days about 21/22/23 week foetuses being born alive and surviving.

Abortion is far too an emotive subject. Everyone has an opinion on it. Worse, everyone believes their opinion is the right one and will proceed to ram it down other peoples throats at any given opportunity.

Provided ladies get the advice they need and are able to make informed decisions - which very well may include guilt trips for many many years after - then I don't see the issue.

Trois - what do you mean "enough stories in the media these days about 21/22/23 week foetuses being born alive and surviving". Do you mean that that was a good enough reason to want to bring the time limits down? If so, unfortunately, these stories hit the news because they are so rare. The survival rates in this group have not really improved, as has been linked above. If Nadine Dorries wants to have an honest discussion about her views on abortion and time limits, I am all for public debate, but to use that a reason is not helpful or accurate.

She is demonstrating she is not impartial, by claiminthat counselling will stop abortion. Surely if it is helping women make the right choice for them it could actually increase abortions. She is assuming that abortion is the wrong decision. She is also claiming Marie stopes makes profit from abortions and therefor ehave an interest in keeping the numbers up. Actually they are not for profit, and provide contraception, sterilizations, and STD treatment, and do work in developing countries.

Trois,
The survival rates have not increased, the amount of media attention to those that do survive has increased. Do we really want parliament to make its laws based on the feel good stories in the dailymail despite the fact that do not represent true statistics.
Also some severe disabilities such as spina bifida cannot be picked up until 20 weeks. Abortions carried out at 24 weeks are not done so on a whim. The woman has been pregnant for 24 weeks at that point, it is a long time to go and then have an abortion on a whim.

Actually I'm not going to go and google statistics because it will undoubtedly throw up images I do not wish to see.

Provided all the advice is there for a lady to make a fully informed decision - I don't see the problem with it.

The "counselling" will not be impartal; Nadine Dorries has a pro-life agenda.

Also she is bloody horrible and makes Ann Widdecombe look like Germaine Greer

kelly2000 Wed 31-Aug-11 12:59:39 sums it all up properly I think. You have your answer there, OP.

Can I just warn anyone who might be sensitive to it that there are graphic descriptions of injury to 'micro-preemies' in the blog post.

Good point, I forgot to mention that. I'm really sorry, everyone.

There is a great deal of detail about medical procedures there.

I'll ask MNHQ if they can edit it.

That is an excellent link, TheBigJessie

For me, two reasons:

1. independent is not synonymous with impartial - you'd be surprised how many adverts for 'unexpectedly pregnant, talk to us' services are run by pro-life organisations. They are very skilled at hiding their true agenda until a woman is in there talking to them...

2. the extremely sinister desire she's expressed to reduce the number of terminations by 30% (and with no explanation of how she's arrived at that figure either).

Oh and the fact that she's claiming not to know who is behind 'Right to Know' who are supporting her. She's either an idiot for not knowing or she's a lying, deceitful bitch...neither of those types of people should be having such influence over the women's sexual health agenda and legislation...

freedom of information request her for all material relating to abortion including emails etc. It will be interesting to know if she really does not know who they are.

Nadine Dorries wants to prevent abortions, and she wants to ensure that government money is given to her friends and allies in the pro-life movement. These organisations want to provide counselling. Nothing wrong with that, on the face of it.

Shame what they want to do is show pregnant women who want a termination baby clothes and tell them that they have to dispose of the remains themselves

She wants to reduce abortions - that is her stated aim - by 60,000.

The ONLY way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies, but she isn't focusing her efforts there.

She believes (with no proof that she has evidenced) that the only counselling on offer (from charities like BPAS and Marie Stopes) cannot possibly be independent as they are 'in the business' of abortions. This is an extremely serious allegation which she, frankly, needs to prove or apologise for.

Her amendment doesn't call for impartial counselling - only counselling that is not from abortion providers.

There is no funding linked to the amendment.

So, logically, the only bodies that are ready to step up and provide this counselling, free of charge, are going to be the anti-abortion pressure groups who already provide (non-compulsory) counselling.

It's actually quite clever. There's nothing in there that is 'anti-abortion' but the whole thrust of it is intended to prevent abortions.

I suspect the money for neonatal care goes to making the outcomes for those who do survive better: it's not an alive / dead scenario at all, it's about long term ehalth and disability as well.

And it's obvious she amde the figures up, quite clear.

I am massively opposed to the bill. My Mother had grief from pro lifes many years ago when she terminated a baby due to rubella, they ahd no time for the fact her baby could not survive or the 4 stillbirths she had already endured. Luckily she went on to have 3 healthy babies. It's not about being a Christian, or anything else- I am a pro choice Christian who happens to think that a God worth recognising would NOT be a women hating one. If there's a Heaven anyway then many unwanted babies / foetuses / pregnancies sadly would be as well off there as born to a home where parents cannot or will not cope, or in a care system that has neither the infrastructure or money to cope.

Also her idea of sex education is "teaching girls to say no".

Also, why do all these people who get on their moral highhorse about this sort of thing almost always the ones who commit sexual transgressions? Repressed guilt?

Holy cow, Victor

What is it with the pro-life movement? I get that some people are opposed to abortion - that's their choice. But good grief their methods. They might garner a little support if they weren't so fucking disingenuous.

To be fair on the Conservatives (some of whom are quite nice, I hear), we ought to be having a pop at Frank Field too imo.

counselling is a process that takes time

and also her beliefs surrounding abortion are known. can't women not decide themselves what they want to do with their own body. this is nothing about helping women at all figures are given out to look like it is a good idea, what is good about making a women wait longer when she has already made her decision

really we are quiet capable of making a decision, we do not need to be made to feel guilty or made to feel we need counselling to make sure we are doing the right thing though some women may need counselling after, its just another way to get women to feel bad about having a termination

Because the knock-on effect will make it even more difficult for women to have an early abortion on the NHS.

Peachy

I asked my GP about a termination in 1990. He refused and told me to get a shelf-stacking job in order to pay for a private clinic. I was young and scared and about to start University. I already had a job and ended up paying for a procedure in a private clinic 30 miles away. I had to rely on the kindness of the father's aunt to drive me back.

With her gorgeous bouncing baby in the car.

It was also a fertility clinic and people like me were in the same waiting room as people desperate to have children.

I thought things had changed since then. Obviously not.