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...

Peachy: 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.

I would think so. Not to mention that the survival rates for 24+ week babies have increased, which was documented by the report that she rubbished.

Thanks for opinions. Really helpful :). I think we need to have a go at Frank Field too (not just because I'm a Tory)

Right, now MNHQ has removed the first post for me, I'm going to try again.

Caution: the below blog can be very, very upsetting. Do not read if you are sensitive. There is a great deal of graphic, detailed discussion of medical procedures and the ramifications of medical treatment for premature babies.

The starting post of the blog

VERY graphic post which makes painful reading

Insomnia
And her idea of stopping sex abuse is to tell girls to say no. If only someone had thought of that before, the way to stop a sex offender is simply by saying NO.

The official talk all mentions "women" wanting to have abortions. This gives the impression that the alternative counselling will be impressed upon mature women, but aren't many of those seeking abortions teenaged girls? Is the Dorries creature seriously advocating sending schoolgirls to Catholic "pregnancy advisors", so they can guilt-trip them into keeping their babies? I'd like to ask her.

Interesting blog TBJ

I have a friend with a child aged 10 who was born at 24 weeks; he has some SN but less than my child two years younger who was born at term plus 10 days and a very uneventful birth. I also watched my nephew battle to survive at 36 weeks and in NICU for a month- and it seems to me that each baby must be looked at as individuals and their chances assessed.

And a crucial part of that is what the medical research says, balanced with a humane understanding of a aprent's desperate hope for their child. I imagine we can all understand a grieving parent who would want their child saved at any stage, judging them would be so very wrong indeed, which is why research must be carefully read and constantly reviewed.

My friend's 10 year old is lucky but he WAS within the medical limits, there is no guarantee that even 12 hours earlier he could have survived.

Basically, if I was a woman I'd trust Norries as far as I could throw her when it came to talking about abortion.

And I wouldn't take morality lessons from someone who fucks married men, either.

Nadine Dorries is an utter fuckwit in so many ways. I would oppose anything she tries to get through Parliament purely on the strength of her general fuckwittery.

Plus as a trainee shrink I'm deeply disturbed by the idea of legislating for this or that type of counselling, as though in her view counselling is equated with brainwashing. No counsellor worthy of the name goes into working with a client with a pre-conceived agenda. Therefore the idea of changing the rules so as to allow 'independent' counselling is meaningless. Or should be. The idea that Ms Dorries sees counselling as something with an agenda is as unnerving to me as the obvious intention, ie making it more difficult for women to get an abortion when they need one preventing 60,000 abortions. It just looks to me like someone in a position of power, trying to use therapy as a tool for social control. Which is utterly, utterly fucked up.

I agree. I have no idea what decision I would make in such a situation. So many variables... I desperately hope that I will never have to find out. If I do, at least I will have some prior knowledge.

Unfortunately, public awareness seems to pretty much consist of feel-good miracle stories about tiny babies, with a side-order of, "Just think, that poor little mite could have been ABORTED. Change the laws now!"

Oh, and occasional trolling I'm-a-hardline-bastard-me opinion articles about how SCBUs cost too much money.

There's a lot of flannel about whether women are "informed" about what an abortion involves. If it was really about making sure women got information, as opposed to trying to guilt-trip them out of the wrong decision, then Ms Dorries and Mr Field would be campaigning on lots of different issues.

For example, they're not advocating that expectant parents receive preparatory guidance on the decisions they might have to make after a pre-term birth. Now,

Rightr, Nadine Dorries did a piece in the DM today - I presume I should apologise profusely for offending the sensibilities of The Guardianistas here ....

Someone tell me what is fundamentally wrong with her view, as publisjed?

All I want is for women to have more choice, more guidance, so they can make a well-informed decision. After all, a termination is one of the most drastic steps that any woman can take ? one that could have a huge impact on the rest of her life.

I am pro-choice, pro-women?s rightsMy great fear is that too many women today are railroaded into abortions without really understanding the implications or alternatives. Having discovered they?re pregnant, they go to a doctor for advice. But suddenly, often within less than a fortnight and with little discussion, they?ve had their pregnancy terminated.

Because of the speed of this process, many suffer long-term mental health problems as a result ? as I know from countless heartbreaking letters I?ve received from such women on the subject regretting their hasty decision.

That?s why I am proposing an amendment to the Health Bill currently going through Parliament, which would require women to be offered independent counselling.

This won?t be offered by any religion-affiliated groups, but by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy ? which has already met the Government to discuss the idea. It would be funded by the NHS, but as the move could potentially reduce the number of abortions in Britain by perhaps a third, the financial toll of abortions on the service would be reduced anyway.

It strikes me as a perfectly rational proposal. And yet despite the modesty of my amendment, the pro-abortion lobby has reacted with almost hysterical outrage.

Oops, pressed post too soon.

*They're not campaigning that women have better access to contraceptive advisors and information of the potential side-effects of each.

*What! No campaign to make it easier for women to have Mirena coils removed? (I have no experience of the Mirena, but there's been threads about them.)

The list goes on. There are so many women who didn't find out about particular pregnancy/childbirth complications being possible until it happened to them. Are either on a campaign to make sure men and women know what can go wrong in pregnancy/childbirth? What about preventing PTSD from traumatic births? No?

Because, troisgarcons, as mentioned here time and time again our worries are:

1. Who will provide this extra counselling?

1. Will they be trained and certified?

1. Who will ensure that these organisations are truly impartial and not pushing an anti abortion agenda? (see Guardian article about current counselling services and their dubious practices)

1. Do these counsellors understand that installing guilt about terminating pregnancies can do more harm than good?

1. Will these counsellors equally point out that, medically speaking, continuing a pregnancy is more dangerous to a woman's health than continuing?

1. Will adding another layer of counselling in fact delay the process so much that the proceedure is both medically adds to an already stressful situation.

1. Given that one of Nadine Dorrises' arguments is that abortion providers are paid by the govt (though she seems not to understand the concept of a "not for Profit" charity) who will pay for yet more counselling? The woman? The overstreteched NHS?

1. Why, when the proceedure, as a whole, works fairly well at the moment, is there a need for change? And if there is a need for change, surely it should be to remove the stipulation that the only elective proceedure on the NHS requires the approval of 2 doctors? Surely it is time to accept that women are perfectly capable of making decisions for themselves?

All I want is for women to have more choice, more guidance, so they can make a well-informed decision. After all, a termination is one of the most drastic steps that any woman can take ? one that could have a huge impact on the rest of her life.

I am pro-choice, pro-women?s rights lies! My great fear is that too many women today are railroaded into abortions without really understanding the implications or alternatives. By whom? who railroads anyone into abortion? If anything it is far too slow to access abortion in this country Having discovered they?re pregnant, they go to a doctor for advice. But suddenly, often within less than a fortnight and with little discussion, they?ve had their pregnancy terminated. not true

Because of the speed of this process, many suffer long-term mental health problems as a result ? as I know from countless heartbreaking letters I?ve received from such women on the subject regretting their hasty decision.

many, in fact most, women don't experience mental health problems as a result of abortion. Those who do may have made the wrong decision. But they didn't make that decision in a vaccuum. They made it in the context of their circumstances at the time. Information and guidance is available - if women regret their choice, well I've made plenty of decisions I regret - but I stand by my right to make them

That?s why I am proposing an amendment to the Health Bill currently going through Parliament, which would require women to be offered independent counselling.

this implies that the current counselling is coercive in nature and promotes abortion. This is a serious and unfounded allegation

This won?t be offered by any religion-affiliated groups, but by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy ? which has already met the Government to discuss the idea. It would be funded by the NHS, but as the move could potentially reduce the number of abortions in Britain by perhaps a third, the financial toll of abortions on the service would be reduced anyway.

BACP isn't as tightly regulated as you'd assume. There are 'sexuality counsellors' who 'train people not to be gay' who still practice as members. It's more then likely that pro-life counsellors could be under the BACP and still jump at the chance of providing 'abortion counselling'. Not to mention a) there is no reason to believe that 1/3 of women who terminate regret that decision, free counselling within a week would be massively, prohibitively expensive and 60000 pregnancies going to term would cost a lot more than 60000terminations

It strikes me as a perfectly rational proposal. And yet despite the modesty of my amendment, the pro-abortion lobby has reacted with almost

pro-abortion lobby gives away her true feelings. Nobody is pro abortion. Dorries is not pro-choice, never has been and never will be

troisgarcons there is so much wrong with her view as expressed in that article it's hard to know where to start...

[charities] are paid millions... and so profit from the process and if they're charities then the money is ploughed straight back into more services for people who need them. They're not using it to pay for say redecorating their shareholders houses...

This won?t be offered by any religion-affiliated groups, but by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy except that nowhere that I can see in the legislation does it say that religious groups will not be permitted to offer counselling...

But I am vehemently opposed to the abuses that have been allowed to creep into the current system, where abortion on demand has become a reality. ...so she's pretty much saying that you shouldn't be able to demand (ie request and reasonably expect to get) an abortion...

And the language used in the article is obnoxious - by referencing the hate mail she's implying that if you're against her you're on the side of terrorists/extremists. Similarly the use of 'pro-abortion' very much looks like she's had the 'coaching' from pro-life organisations who never reference 'pro-choice' if possible.

the article in case anyone is interested...

Everyone else beat me to it.

The only point left for me to make is:

if it is a speedy process, that would have a lot to do with the fact that having an abortion is a time-sensitive process. There is not infinite deliberation time available! Especially if you want to have it performed before 12 weeks, as most people agree early-term abortions are better than late-term abortions.

I suppose posters are right and we should be bringing the equally risible Frank Fields into this too but I freely admit there's something about ND that really riles me. I think its cos she's a female misogynist [anger]

What everyone else said. She's hoping, basically, that through a combination of a) delaying the termination and therefore forcing an unwilling woman to endure more weeks of pregnancy and b) guilt-tripping, 60,000 women a year will be coerced/persuaded/pressured into having babies they didn't really want. And that, in my view, is bad. As someone said above, the way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregancies by improving sex education/women's self-esteem/the responsibility of father's to provide for their children etc etc.

The right number of abortions in the UK is one for every woman who wants one, that's all there is to it.

Apols for stray apostrophe. Dorries-induced rage.

pro life counselling

another example

Just a couple of examples of the "counselling" on offer from Pro Life groups.

This is part of a two-pronged attack on Abortion. Cameron has already campaigned and voted for a reduction in the time limit to 22 weeks

Elephants

Dorries already has Sex Ed. sorted. We all have to wear silver rings and say "No".

One of the charities that would be eligible to provide the counselling as a member of the BACP is Life.

Life's vision as per their website:

The rights and dignity of each person are afforded the utmost respect, in law and in practice, from fertilisation (conception) until natural death;

?Women who are faced with a crisis pregnancy are given as much practical, financial and emotional support as is necessary to help them bring their pregnancy to term; and are supported for as long afterwards as necessary;

?Our young people are given a true sense of their self worth and a full appreciation of the importance of loving, stable and faithful relationships;

?Medical science, in seeking to overcome and cure debilitating illnesses and diseases, pursues research that demonstrates the utmost respect for human life from fertilisation (conception) until natural death

They don't sound pro-life at all

The Life philosophy is a joke.

If I becmae pregnant tomorrow Ild have, despite my desperate wish not to have to, to consider a termination as I have 4 chidlren, 3 with SN and one with SEN, already. The workload of another child who would in all likelihood have some elvel of SN would be too much. It would kill me, but I'd ahve to consider it. I have no idea what decision I would actually make.

From the sharp end of social care I know there is no respite, support or anything available. MOney is cut not awrded freely; homes are at a premium. We as a vulnerable family might lose out house in 3 months (natural end of tenancy, hoping for renewal) and if we do there will be nowhere for us to be rehoused- someone on their own with a new baby would be less of a priority.

There is a massive shortage of any work especially family friendly work, and even the most convinced-of-their- relationship person is at least aprtly just optimistic: and I say that as osmoen who loves and trusts her DH deeply.

Support services for crisis are non existent- the parenting charity I worked for was oftgen used by SSD to pick up cases when they ahd no support to offer: the charity went under, That gets worse, not better, daily.

It is cruel and dishonest to offer 'advice' based on a world that does not and will not in any near time exist.

if she is so pro-choice, why does she go out of her why to try to limit a woman's choice. She states quite simply that she wants to cut abortion, and intends the counselling to do that so she already believes it is going to be bias against choosing abortion. She states abortion causes mental illness when actually it does not and keeping the pregnancy has been shown to increase mental illness. If she does not even know the truth about abortion and mental illness how can she possibly say that she knows enough to make judgements on what counts as impartial advice. Plus she makes accusations against those who disagree with her left right and centre. She really does not come across as anything other than hysterical in my opinion.

And I am not going to take morality advice from someone who appears to claim to have been involved in disposing of a living child, that has never been legal whatever she may claim.