To ask pro-choice MNers to email your MPs? <this is not a request to vote on anything>

[EricNorthmansMistressOfPotions]

There is an article here about the proposed amendments to the health and social care bill which will force women to undergo 'independent' counselling before being allowed to choose to terminate a pregnancy. The assumption is that BPAS and the like have a financial investment in encouraging women to terminate and as such their counselling is biased. The stated goal is to reduce the number of terminations per year by forcing women to delay between seeking and receiving termination, and having to undergo additional counselling (political bias unknown, though easily guessed at) prior to the termination. ND hopes that woman will change their minds during this enforced extended waiting period.

If you think this is a shit idea you can email your MP by clicking this link

This is not a request to vote on anything at all

Well I AM arguing for a hypothetical - I have said a few times that I didn't see the problem with counselling (or even compulsory counselling) IF it was genuinely independent and depending on what form it would take. The rest of you just seem to be arguing against it regardless!

"There must be some reason why the current system is seen as being flawed."

Yes. I suspect there is. I suspect it has something to do with them not being pro-life, and with them not attempting to scare/convince women out of wanted abortions.

If there was a genuine problem with family planning clinics "forcing" abortions on women, then I presume that
a) it would have been an issue a long time ago
b) Dorries would be insisting on some kind of investigation/control over the practices

Goldfish - just out of curiosity - are any of the 'pro-life' organisations actually considered non-religious? I know most of the examples given on here were religious so maybe stipulating 'non-religious' would be enough to eliminate the extreme pro-life organisations from the equation?

Empusa, i think you are jumping to conclusions again without any evidence that is the case. Also, it doesn't have to be an issue of 'force' it could just be an issue of not really discussing other options in much detail to allow a woman to fully consider them all.

It is Nadine Dorries, together with a few other back bench MPs that are of the opinion that the clinics providing abortions have a vested interest. As BPAS and Marie Stopes are not for profit organisations, and as nobody has been able to come up with any evidence yet on the vested interest, it doesn't seem too likely that there is a genuine financial conflict of interests.

Dorries is doing her best to smear various people that don't agree with her view of things though - check out her blog.

bumbleymummy as part of my job I have to deal with legislation and I can tell you that badly drafted and vague primary and secondary legislation is a nightmare.

I have worked with Government departments and parliamentary draftsmen to try and sort out the mess that vague legislation causes.

I can tell you that the easiest way to prevent vague / unclear / ambiguous or loose drafting from having a negative effect is to make damn sure it doesn't get on the statute books in the first place rather than trying to deal with the unintended or intended consequences of the poor legislation.

The Dorries / Field amendments are very badly drafted as all they do is create a prohibition on a class of organisations from providing counselling.

There is no attempt in the primary legislation (nor any indication of any secondary legislation) to specify impartial, scientifically valid, accurate counselling delivered in a timely fashion.

Taking BPAS and Marie Stopes out of the counselling providers creates a vacuum and I think it is disingenuous of you to suggest that Dorries does not expect that vacuum to be filled at least in part with pro-life organisations.

Argh - why am I promoting her blog?? No don't look at the blog. It's heinous.

Very clear wording there from the Guardian 'counselling independent of the abortion provider' - that is NOT the same as independent counselling. As I mentioned on another thread, the wording of this amendment is insidious - if ND or anyone else has evidence that organisations providing counselling are using that influence for financial gain then let them share it. Otherwise it's just an abuse of parliamentary privilege to slander and libel the charities and open the back door to other providers with an equally 'vested' interest.

Thanks for your post Chaz - it's interesting to look at it from that angle.

So, out of curiosity - Hypothetically if counselling was being offered from a genuinely independent, reliable source which had been set up, vetted and approved by an independent body and this had all been laid out fully in the proposed legislation, would those of you currently opposed to the idea of counselling still be against it on either a voluntary or compulsory (to ensure informed decision without pressure/guilt) basis?

Obviously we are assuming funds etc are not an issue here....

I am not against the idea of voluntary access to counselling. However, I don't think that BPAS or Marie Stopes have a vested interest in promoting abortion as they are not for profit organisations that provide a wide range of family planning services and so I question the idea that the counselling needs to be independent from them.

My other concern is the timely provision of counselling. If a woman chooses to have an abortion then it is better it is done as quickly as possible so an 8 week wait for counselling would potentially be a disaster. And lets face it 8 weeks is a pretty short wait for counselling on the NHS.

Bumbley, to answer your earlier question, I think most of them are religiously affiliated tbh - but you know Dorries only stipulates that 'the counselling does not mention God' - her amendment doesn't say, asaik, that the counselling cannot be funded by religious organisations.

Also, the religious bit is only mentioned on her blog, I don't think it's on the actual amendment itself.

To answer your second question, I would be very happy for genuinely impartial advice and counselling to be available for all women with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies - but that is not what Dorries' amendment is proposing.

I dont think anyone is against the idea of free, fast, properly impartial voluntary counselling. I really don't - i was surprised counselling wasnt more widely available.

But it has to be ALL of those things - again, free, fast, impartial and voluntary - not a pick and mix.

Counselling is a funny old thing as well - not suited to everyone. People shouldn't ever see a counsellor expecting them to provide all the right answers, in any situation.

The heartbreaking fact of the situation is that the problem lies in the unwanted pregnancy, and the fact that a choice has to be made. No counsellor can provide an answer to a woman facing this decision - it is one she must make herself.

Of course, that is not to say that it should not be available - just that people shouldn't see it as the answer to all their problems.

Well it's nice that we can actually agree on some things!

Good night ladies. It's been an interesting (and reasonably civil) discussion.

(smiley)

Or ANY answers, MyGoldfish - the answers should come from the individual SEEKING counselling. IMHO, it's very difficult for ANYONE to FEEL impartial about unwanted pregnancy in any single individual case. But people can be trained to BEHAVE impartially. Maybe we could all agree that all people offering counselling should receive some professional training? By professional, I mean not just half an hour of Circle Time...

I note that Dave has put a lid on the whole thing....

I don't agree that every single woman who has a termination is therefore messed up in the head and needs counselling, but a great many would want it and could benefit from it. More funding should be given to the current providers for this. They do a very difficult job under a huge amount of social pressure. There is no such thing as pro-abortionists. They no more want to perform more abortions than the Red Cross want to start any more wars.

I have just read on Dorries blog that she calls Evan Harris MP an 'abortion and assisted death zealot'. I cannot even begin to say how offensive I find this.

So I think we can be under no illusion about her true views on abortion - and her amendment has nothing to do with women's rights, or making things better for women. Her hidden agenda (not so hidden actually) is clear from her blog.

Think the pressure needs to be kept up - keep e-mailing your MP, make sure they know what an important issue this is.

Nadine Dorries truly makes me sick.

Government have done a U-turn on this issue. Directing MPs to vote against Dorries proposals.

here

Goodness - that's great news (for a change) :)

Don't stop emailing your MPs until the vote is actually over. Even if the government has done a U-turn a free vote could still be close.

Yep, keep the pressure up. It is a free vote, so individual MPs can vote how they wish. Lets make sure they are hearing from their constituents about how they want to be represented!

Does anyone else think Nadine Dorries always manages to come across as unhinged?
She always seems to be claiming that she is being persecuted yet comes up with no evidence, just ignores any arguements against her or claims they are vile bullying etc, she claims another MP an "abortion and assisted death zealot", she claims that not-for-profit charities are in fact acting for profit and pushing people into have abortions for money yet it turns out she has not one shred of evidence whatsoever, she claimed sex abuse would decrease if young girls said no to sex, apparently had an affair and then allegedly made false claims that the partner of her lover had had an affair first,and then the icing on the cake this self appointed morality queen comes across as claiming to have been involved in the disposal of a living child when she was a nurse after a botched abortion, something which has never been legal, and surely if true she should be investigated by the police unless she actually took the baby to the ICU. Read the dailymail article and tell me if you think it sounds like that?

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2031958/Abortions-Nadine-Dorries-wants-guidance-available-women.html#ixzz1Wh8C7vuK

I think she's a narcissist. I was yesterday when I looked up her MP page - she had a massive majority at the last election on something like a 75% turnout. There really is nowt as queer as folk...

here is the bit I was referring to

"the little baby was still alive ? I could clearly see it struggling for breath, gasps shaking its tiny body. In my shock, I ran to find the nursing sister. But she could hardly have been less sympathetic. Telling me to continue with the destruction of the foetus, she looked coldly into my eyes and said: ?You?d better toughen up, young lady. You?ll see a lot of that sort of thing in this job.? I can still remember the harshness in her voice as she spat out the words.This episode had a deep effect on me."

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2031958/Abortions-Nadine-Dorries-wants-guidance-available-women.html#ixzz1Wh8C7vuK

Er, what did she actually do then, I hope she took it to the ICU, but she tails off. I have heard this befoe from her and as far as am aware she never actually says what she does with the child. I do not belive this story at all, apart form anything if it was true then I would asusme she would be prosecuted if she actually took part in the destruction.