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

"However when a woman has made her mind, up following discussions with her family and friends" that kind of assumes that a woman would be able to talk it over with her family and friends when she actually may feel like she can't talk to anyone hence why counselling would be useful!

She herself did not specify abortion clinics as welcoming the change.
What I mean is that if clinic a provides dozens of services including abortion, and then you ask person b if clinic a would like to advertise, and person b says yes, then it is not a real lie to claim that "person B claims an abortion clinic wants to advertise", yet person B themselves have not claimed "abortion clinics want to advertise", they have just said that an organisation wants to advertise.
If you really read it carefull you will see that at no point has Sally Torbor directly said clinics offering abortions welcome the change.

Bumbley, But counselling does not work like that. A counsellor cannot legally actually give advice, or offer their own opinion. The fact that you think the counselling will be like a family substitute demonstrates it will not be proper unbias counselling. The counselling that is available, is the counselling that gives proper unbias advice.
Abortion is not evil, not even a lesser one like you claim. A woman always has control over her own body, and the risks she takes. And you cannot legally stop woman from having a late abortion as she cannot be made to put her life and health at risk. Suggesting that as a compromise women should give over control of her body once she is x amount of weeks pregnant is evil.

Smc -I think the comparison is just showing ideals vs realities.

Kelly- "Sally Torbor directly said clinics offering abortions welcome the change."

"Last night Sally Taber from Independent Healthcare Advisory Services, which represents private healthcare organisations, said clinics offering terminations would welcome the change"

Sally Torbor maybe didn't say it but Sally Taber did

Actually Kelly I said it would be someone to talk to in case she can't/doesn't want to talk to her family. Where did I say that I wanted them to give advice/their opinion/act like a family substitute?

Notice how I wrote 'lesser of two evils' in inverted commas. It's an expression. You can stop a woman from having a late term (post 24 week) abortion if her life or the baby's life is not at risk so technically a woman hands over control of her body at 24 weeks.

Like Kelly, I thought abortion clinics were legally not allowed to make a profit. I would be genuinely interested in the answer - a quick google leaves me none the wiser, but what I will say is that the abortion providers targeted by Nadine Dorries are BPAS and Marie Stopes - who are quite definitely not for profit charities.

I feel sure that Dorries herself would have jumped all over a private hospital making huge profits from abortions - but, maybe, 1. they don't exist (commercial hospitals wouldn't necessarily make profits, just not have a legal not for profit status), or 2. if they do exist, they perform so few abortions that Dorries is not bothering with them. That article re. the advertising does not show in any shape or form that abortion providers are making a profit.

Again and again she has alluded to BPAS/Marie Stopes potential vested interest, but she doesn't come up with any actual evidence. And she won't be able to - because they are not for profit, and they are approved by the Dept of Health. It would be a very serious allegation to accuse them of having a financial vested interest.

Oh FFS with your 'lesser of two evils' nonsense. Abortion is not evil. You may believe it is, but the law of the land states it is not. Women who chose to abort aren't evil and neither are their actions, they are exercising their rights over their own bodies.

To return to an earlier point, I believe the clinics Sally Tobar are discussing are your 'Harley Street' private doctors. I did wonder where they would come up in these discussions as they are completely separate from organisations like BPAS and Marie Stopes, and clearly separate from the NHS. I believe they are currently not allowed to make a profit from providing abortion services but are allowed to make a profit from other services they offer, like IVF, gynae services, etc. Its an interesting aspect of the debate because the implication is that, should you have enough money, you'll get a 'better' service from these organisations than you would from NHS or charity providers (I have no basis for that assumption other than the general 'going private is all lovely with room service and your own room' spiel). I don't believe they have to provide counselling either, but that they have to provide it if its asked for?

What on earth are you talking about swc? You are objecting to someone who is pro-life campaigning for a reduction in the limit because it isn't their 'ideal' ie abortion not being legal. I'm just pointing out that if it can't be banned then a reduction is better than nothing.

You said counselling would be good if someone did not or could not talk to their family i.e you likened the counselling to family advice. Lesser of two evils is an expression, an appalling oen to use int his context.
And if you read the article sally Tabar did not directly say "clinics offering terminations would welcome tthe moves" It was not a direct quote. The quote you put up was from the author paraphrasing her it was not from her. The actual direct quote said nothign about abortion clinics welcoming it.

Wilson read my comment above re. 'lesser of two evils'

If those private clinics do have to provide counselling how likely is that to be unbiased?

Kelly, that is not 'likening it to family advice'.

Direct quote:
"She said: "We would definitely welcome this, clearly hospitals want to raise awareness of services they provide, but some might choose not to advertise because of the sensitivity of the service - we have seen the problems in other countries when abortion clinics come under attack. Each provider will need to think this through very carefully.""

Oh look, she mentions abortion clinics again in the context of hospitals wanting to raise awareness of the 'services they provide' and the 'sensitivity of the service'.

Clearly she must just be talking about handing out condoms

goldfish, no-one can make a profit from providing abortion in the UK, which is exactly why Dorries has yet to mention a provider that makes a profit.

SMC - I think it's more likely that the limit would be reduced rather than it being completely outlawed - don't you?

In answer moonferret's comments, I can't claim this as my own work - it is from an article I read - but it show my sentiments perfectly:

'Dorries amendment seems to be based on a failure to understand what it means to actually be pro-choice. It isn't the opposite of being pro-life. It isn't anything to do with when you personally think life begins, or whether you personally would choose to have an abortion. It just means you accept that you - never mind the state - can't make that decision for anyone else. The absence of an ideological position, or rather the absence of a desire to enforce an ideological position on other, simply does not equate to a devout, self interested pursuit of an agenda opposite to the one you refuse to enforce.'

So stop calling us pro-abortionists Nadine!

Kelly, can you link to something that says that? Is there a law about it?

Kelly, yes that's what I thought too - so what is Bumbley going on about?

And if I said you were a "pro-life fanatic" but put it in inverted commas that would be OK would it? Come on.

I don't really know much about private clinics, however they are heavily regulated in the same way any medical services are. If the law says they should provide unbiased counselling - and if they're not allowed to make a profit on that aspect of their service - why would I believe that their counselling was unbiased, as there is again not a shred of evidence to the contrary?

counselling was biased of course. Tired tonight.

The only problem with that, Goldfish, is that in order to be completely pro-choice you would need to accept the idea of abortion to term for any reason. Otherwise, why can you (or the state) decide for someone else that they can't have an abortion unless they meet certain criteria - particularly when they reach the 24 week point?

You have (again) completely misunderstood Bumbley.

The last line - re-read it.

My beliefs do NOT equate to the exact opposite of the pro-life ideology.