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

frankly sieglinde, prolifers clearly do not 'cackle'...nor do most dangerously misguided people. Next you'll be telling me I think they have horns. Sorry but if you'd done as much research as I have into the ghastly antics of the American pro-life lobby (which terrifyingly, includes many politicians) you wouldn't be being quite so evenhanded. (Although by the sound of it you are one anyway).

And I will never be convinced that anyone who thinks they have the right to force me or any other woman to bear a child they do not want to bear is anything but dangerously misguided.

Sieglinde,
But the foetus is in the body of the woman, so they are directly or indirectly trying to claim ownership of women's bodies. They might see themselves as foetus defenders, but there is no getting around the fact that in order to do what they want they have to not only remove a woman's rights to her own body, life and health (after all an abortion is far safer than pregnancy and childbirth with no women in the UK dying in recent years from legal abortions, whereas plenty have died in pregnancy andchildbirth - the UK has one of the highest maternal death rates in the western world), but will also mean she has to have things done to her body such as vaginal examinations, going through childbirth etc against her consent. If these people got their way how are they going to deal with a woman who refuses to get medical aid, force her, strip her, will they ban her from leaving the country, will they go the American way and prosecute women for doing legal activities that could harm the foetus?
Women either have control over their own bodies, their own health, and their own lives, or we accept they are non-people and belong to the state.

absolutely kelly.

I have no idea what Dorries believes.

I don't think you can really tell very far, can you? I don't have any such stereotypes in mind; I worked for a pro-choice organisation for many years in a state where abortion was illegal and there was constant harassment and risk of arrest. I fully support the legality of abortion. However, I think there is evidence that not all women are allowed enough space to make a decision. This does not imply that all women who choose to abort or who choose not to abort are misguided.

In no way did I say that anyone making a decision on their own pregnancy is misguided. What is dangerous is to believe that anyone else has the right to make or even influence that decision for them.

You can get an idea of Dorries' beliefs pretty easily from Google or her blog, but it isn't easy reading.

Misunderstanding, break - I don't suppose for a moment that you think people misguided, but you were diligently putting words into my mouth, so I thought I'd clarify my own position.

I've been to Dorries' blog, and I think it's naive to imagine that it represents anything other than smoke and mirrors; she's a politician. Admittedly, she seems like someone who needs words put in her mouth...but I still maintain we don't know what she is thinking.

"Dorries claims the baby was alive and she was told to destroy it. You claimed this could be true as you have heard of similar things happening i.e nurses killing babies born alive after botched abortions"

Actually, I claimed that the baby being born alive could be true because that was what some people were saying couldn't be true due to the injection to the heart. That was why I linked to the Times article which talked about cases where aborted babies had been born alive and mentioned nothing about killing the babies so I'm not sure why you decided to jump to the conclusion that I was saying that.

Breaktime: "you're trying to tell me that Dorries doesn't believe that sort of thing? (or want to believe it)?"

I don't know what she believes. I know very little about her. It's a bit silly to suggest that ALL pro-lifers think all the same things though. It would be the same as me suggesting that you believe that abortion should be available on demand to term because some pro-choicers have that opinion.

"The other option seems to be the 'poor feckless girl very probably doomed to a lifetime of misery and regret' stereotype which is the one you seem more fond of, as far as I can tell."

I haven't said ALL women regret abortions, I have said that some do and they are probably the ones that the counselliNg is targeted at.

For the record I haven't called anyone 'feckless' either.

as I've said, if you're in any doubt at all about Dorries' beliefs a quick bit of Google research will clear that up for you.

Ok, straight from the horse's mouth:

"Bear in mind this amendment is to offer women the option of independent counselling, delivered not by the abortion provider, not by a religious organisation, but by one of the 80,000 BACP professional counsellors across the country who are prohibited at present from working with pregnant women.

It?s just an offer, they don?t have to accept it, however, those who have doubts and need help may do and if they do, then so be it, surely it is their choice?"

Is that what you are all objecting to?

I think it has already been established on this thread that no-one is objecting to women being offered access to impartial counselling.

Perhaps the confusion is because of NDs use of the word independent - she does not mean impartial (which is what you seem to be arguing for and to which no-one seems to be objecting) but independent of abortion providers even if that counselling is highly biased (which is what many of the people here are objecting to)

Here's some further information about ND and her lack of transparency about her motives: liberalconspiracy.org/2011/09/01/revealed-nadine-dorries-and-her-real-views-on-abortion/

Bumbley,
you said this
Dorries' story could be true if you look at this Times article:

and
You don't have to believe her personal story if you don't want to but it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

Her story was about the killing of a baby born alive after a botched abortion so believeng it to be true has serious implications for Dorries, and I for one do not believe that nurses act illegally and do what Dorries claims and kill babies born alive after abortions. That is why abortion providers have to have specialist incubators etc on stand by for late abortions. If her story is true it means she has some serious explaining to do. If she is lying she is also wrong. Either way the tories shuold expell her, she cannot justify doing what she did if the story is true, she cannot justify lying about it if it is false.

besides which abortions carried out this late are done so only if the mother is in danger, or the baby is severely disabled. So new legislation would not alter this anyway.

Seiglinde,
To give you some idea of what she is like, she went to the national media and told them that if young girls were told to say no to sex, there would be less sexual abuse!

Kelly, if you read the times article I linked to - the one titled "50 babies a year are alive after abortion" you could not have doubted what I was saying. Particularly since it followed a comment by another poster saying that her story couldn't be true because babies' hearts are stopped prior to abortion.

Also, although we don't know what happened in this particular situation, there have been instances where aborted babies have been killed after birth. So saying "it doesn't mean it doesn't happen" (even though I did not originally mean it in that context because I was talking about babies being born alive) isn't actually false. There was a case at the start of the year about a doctor who did kill babies after aborting them and he was charged with murder. Once again, I am not saying that this is what happened in Dorries' situation. If that was the case then yes, there would need to be an investigation.

The doctor was in the US by the way.

Kelly,
"besides which abortions carried out this late are done so only if the mother is in danger, or the baby is severely disabled. So new legislation would not alter this anyway."

I think you are confused. There are no differences made in the law for abortions up to 24 weeks - the requirements are the same whether you are aborting at 12 or 23 weeks . However, there is no time limit (ie. Abortion to term) if the mother's life is in danger or for severe abnormalities.

As you kept saying you thought Dorries could be telling the truth, there was plenty of room for thinking that you thought her story of killing the baby was true. And the case you are referring to did not happen in the UK, and is illegal here as well as there. I might also point out he has not been convicted as far as I know, and as pregnant women whose babies die in utero can be charged with murder in America I do not have much faith that an abortionist will get treated fairly. Saying abortion should be banned as if it is legal some people might do other illegal things makes no sense. Shipman murdered god knows how many people, but that does not mean visiting a GP should be banned as the GP might do something illegal.
Killing babies born alive after botched abortions is illegal in the UK so there is no need to put in more legislation against it. As abortions carried out at this time (only 2% after 20 weeks) are done so because the mother's health is in danger etc means there is no point focusing on these late abortions as there is no way to legislate against them anyway. can you name one case since abortion was legal where a baby was killed after it was born alive after a botched abortion in the UK.
And once again if Dorries is lying or telling the truth she is despicable in my eyes, and should be expelled from the party straight away.

2% of all UK abortions are carried out after 20 weeks. At 20 weeks severe abnormalities are able to be detected.

Bumbley - 'straight from the horses mouth' quote - the answer in my case is No, that is not what I am objecting to.

blogs.news.sky.com/boultonandco/Post:dc82e8c6-9a74-403d-9f68-3fcc7530551a

This is what I am objecting to: to quote from the above blog:

'...a key part of the amendment: "information, advice and counselling is independent where it is provided by either - (i) a private body that does not itself provide for the termination of pregnancies; or (ii) a statutory body."

In other words, abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service would be prevented from offering counselling, while there is nothing to stop, say, a Christian fundamentalist group from doing so.'

That's why. Cameron and Clegg have turned their back on this now - which is a big help.

Anyone that cannot see Nadine Dorries' anti-abortion agenda, or claims not to know her views on abortion having read her blog, is just being obtuse I'm afraid. It is blatantly obvious - read her own article in the Daily Mail. She pours vitriol on 'pro-abortionists' to use her phrase and called Evan Harris an 'abortion and assisted death zealot'. Is that really the language of someone with moderate views on the subject?

There are many very real objections to this Amendment, and these have been made thoroughly and abundantly clear throughout this thread. But then Bumbley (mainly) keeps coming back to various anti-abortion arguments. Dorries amendment, if successful, will not address any of these issues, such as , late abortions, or aborted babies being born alive. What the amendment will do is prevent experienced counselling bodies, such as BPAS from counselling pregnant women and will allow religious pro-life groups to do the counselling.

Not good for women or women's rights.

Bumbley, have you conveniently forgotten the numerous posts by many different posters on this thread that stated this very simple objection ? No one has objected to the counselling being offered per se- it is the fact that the amendment will prohibit Marie Stopes and the BPAS from doing any counselling that is the problem. WHen they are not for profit organisations, and have no financial vested interest. If you're going to keep naively posting 'Oh, what's wrong with offering every woman independent counselling', whent he thread is on p 36, then I can see these circular arguments going on until the thread is full.

Thanks again OP for posting this link and highlighting the dangerous view of people like Dorries and Field.

Can I just direct people to a news story in which our beloved PM says he won't back Dorries proposal? here.

Bad news for all those busy-bodying pro-lifers , eh?

but it looks like cameron might need to grow a pair as he might not make the vote!

My guess would be that he's realised it's not a vote winner rather than anything else but hey.

Dave, grow a pair? Nevvah.