The Dorries amendment will be a free vote - keep the pressure on

[WilsonFrickett]

Lots of press today saying that the govt has decided to vote against ND's ridiculous amendment. While this is good news, it will still be a free vote, with individual MPs able to vote as they please. If you were thinking about emailing your MP on this issue please still do so - the result isn't a foregone conclusion.

From the Guardian article:

...a combination of the unpredictable intake of new Tory MPs, split between social conservatives and modernisers, the number of Roman Catholic Labour MPs, and the high degree of nuance of the amendment make it extremely unclear which way the vote will go.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/31/downing-street-uturn-abortion-proposals

advertise. Presumably

98% of abortions are carried out before 13 weeks. After 24 weeks the mother's health or life must be at risk, or the foetus must have such a serious deformity that it will die before birth, die during or shortly after birth, or have a severe disability. Many deformaties, or risks to mother's health can only be spotted at or after 20 weeks.

There are other reasons companies like Marie Stopes don't advertise, one of the most obvious being the huge backlash by people who think they are trying to encourage more abortions (or even "sell" abortions).

Bumbleymummy your quotation from Sally Taber suggests only to me that there are UK providers of abortion (and other gynaecological services) who would like to advertise but cannot, presumably because of current law.

Is that correct, or have I got it wrong?

If I am correct then how are Nadine Dorries and Frank Field being honest in suggesting that UK providers of abortion are advertising and profiting from their services when the only people allowed to advertise are those who make no profit?

Moonferret can you expand?

And if you regard the destruction of foetuses as wrong why do you advocate cutting the limit to 16 weeks? Surely if you believe abortion is wrong then it should be illegal from conception.

Well Kelly2000, make the limit 13 weeks then unless there is a proven risk to the mother's life. Job done, and most abortions unaffected...so what's the problem.

Limitedperiod - they were saying that the restrictions had changed so those companies now would be allowed to advertise.

limitedperiodonly It should really be illegal from conception, but some women's will to dispose of their "foetuses" would mean it would never work. Therefore, as a compromise, no abortion should be carried out at a point after which babies have survived in more than a few cases. I don't know exactly how many weeks this is, but 16 seems more than reasonable, especially when 98% are carried out before 13 weeks anyway!!

Sorry - providers

You are claiming that there are for profit abortion providers in the UK, but you cannot name one. Your proof for your claims is that you cannot advertise if you make a profit, and not all providers advertise. The newspaper article was published by the telegraph, which has only run anti-abortion articles recently and in the same article talks about the ammendments. Not exactly an unbias article really. And Sally tber did not refer to 35 abortion providers wishing to advertise. She says private clinics would like to advertise, she does not say abortion clinics in particular wish to advertise.

Don't most European countries have a limit of 12 weeks unless the mother's life is in danger or in cases of severe foetal abnormality?

Moonferret,
cutting it to 16 weeks would not change the number of abortions, as any abortions after that would fit the rules regarding the mother's health etc.
And abortion should not be illegal from conception. What would you do pin a woman down and strip her naked so she could be examined and then give birth. And given that pregnancy is far riskier to a woman's health and life than abortion she has the right to choose if she risks her heallth and life.

bumbley how have the restrictions on advertising changed. Can you quote me the Act?

Moonferret so you're anti-abortion. Thanks for being honest. Didn't hurt that much, did it?

Why do you and other anti-abortionists want to compromise? To you, abortion is wrong. That's okay. I respect your views, I just wish more anti-abortionists would be honest about it.

Is the reason you're seeking to chip down to 13 weeks because you presume it will be more acceptable to the majority of UK people who believe abortion should be available at some stage or other is easier than telling the truth about your true aims?

BTW what's viability for foetuses born at 20 weeks (Nadine Dorries's target of last year) let alone 13 weeks?

Bum,
are you suggesting that a woman's health is not important?

Kelly, " she does not say abortion clinics in particular"

From the article:

"More than 35 private hospitals in England currently offer abortion services, though many are better known for their maternity and fertility services."

My 'proof' (as you choose to put it) is that this article (and others) talks about these private hospitals now being able to advertise whereas, previously, only NFP organisations could. If ALL abortion providers were NFP then why would this change make any difference to them? They could have advertised before. I am not saying they will advertise, nor is the article which actually mentions that many would choose not to anyway.

limitedperiodonly "That didn't hurt much, did it?" What are you on about..? I'm against it, but when it comes to abortion reform, there's no point advocating outlawing it. I fail to see where your problem is in understanding this.

"Bum,
are you suggesting that a woman's health is not important?"

Eh? What have you twisted into that?

Bum, as I said the author refers to 35 clinics, not Sally Tobar. She does not say there are 35 wanting to advertise like you claimed. The article does not state the abortion providers make profit from abortion. It is the author claiming this is making a difference to them, not any of the clinics. Read it very very carefully, it is well constructed to imply things, but if you read it carefully it is more a case of the author putting words in people's mouths and putting things in such away thta anti-abortionists read it and put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5.

Limitedperiod, I think moon ferret made it clear from the start that she was pro-life....

Where did I say there were 35 that wanted to advertise? I said there were 35 who would benefit from it. This is what they said referencing Sally Taber:
"Sally Taber from Independent Healthcare Advisory Services, which represents private healthcare organisations, said clinics offering terminations would welcome the change - though not all would choose to advertise, given the risk of negative publicity" so there you go, she did specifically mention abortion clinics.

You said "Sally Taber - she apparently knows 35 in England alone who would benefit from now being allowed to advertise"

An in the passage you used above Sally Tobar does not say abortion clinics, the author does. The quote is from the author not Tobar. The diretct quote from Tobar is different.

Ok, she did not specifically say 35 - that was the person in the article so yes, you are right there.

BUT

You said:

"she does not say abortion clinics in particular wish to advertise."

and the article did actually say that she said:

"clinics offering terminations would welcome the change" I did not say that they wanted to advertise just that they now could or would be able to benefit from it.

Re pressure, OP. I didn't post on the original thread but I did email my MP, David Hamilton, and he's pro-choice and concerned about the ND proposals. Here is his email:

Thank you for your e-mail regarding abortion counselling.

I share your concern with the implications of the proposed changes to the patient pathway that women seeking an abortion will be required to take. It is right for women to be provided with a full set of information about the medical implications of their decision as well as the alternative options available to them. However when a woman has made her mind, up following discussions with her family and friends, we should not seek to disrupt the pathway and make abortion anymore traumatic or distressing than it needs to be by disrupting a women?s progress through the procedure by sending them to various different locations and service providers is unnecessary and unfair.

I note that two MPs, Nadine Dorries and Frank Field, are attempting to change the law as you have described. I am aware that the relevant amendments were tabled to the Bill after it originally finished its committee stage and at this point the Government decided to stop and reconsider the Bill before sending it back to committee for further scrutiny. Because this is a very unusual procedure I have been unable to find out from the Parliamentary authorities if the original amendments still stand on the order paper for September?s Report Stage. The amendments have not been re-tabled. Therefore I cannot say if they will be selected for debate.

What is most worrying is that the Department of Health has suggested that it can implement these changes without changing primary legislation ? and therefore potentially without the consent of the House of Commons. The Government have said that they want women to receive ?independent? counselling and that the law may already provide the legal mechanism to achieve this. In my opinion it would be wrong for the Government to make such a substantive change in the abortion pathway without the support of Parliament.

Etc, etc.

I actually think moon ferret expressed it quite well. It's like a 'lesser of two evils' thing. If you can't ban abortion then at least reduce the limit - it's better than nothing from a pro-life point of view but that doesn't mean you agree with it.