Abortion advice from Nadine Dorries is classic backstreet politics: The campaign to put abortion counselling in the hands of faith-based groups is grubby and mendacious
There are two main problems with Nadine Dorries's amendment to the health and social care bill: the first is that it looks innocuous. Who could object to independent counselling for women seeking abortions? It sounds so generous and caring, like getting free dental work when you're pregnant. The second problem is that any discussion of the abortion amendment risks drawing fire away from the rest of the bill, which desecrates the NHS. There is no answer to that, apart from to carry on protesting against the whole thing. But back to Dorries's amendment: it is not innocuous. The fact that it looks that way is critical to how dangerous it is.
The exact wording is this: the government should provide "independent information, advice and counselling services for women requesting termination of pregnancy to the extent that the consortium considers they will choose to use them". "Independent" is defined as "a private body that does not itself provide for the termination of pregnancies or a statutory body".
In other words, GPs decide how much counselling to provide, and it can be provided by anyone except those performing the abortion. There is no requirement that "independent" mean "not faith-based": we'd have to rely on the discretion of the Department of Health to keep out groups such as CareConfidential, whose "counselling" consists of misinformation aimed at discouraging women from having abortions.
The ethics of allowing faith-based groups to have a central role in healthcare provision have been well rehearsed: there's an interesting tangential point, here, when you look at the other work undertaken by charities lining up to do abortion counselling. Groups such as New Frontiers (a church run by David Stroud, husband of Iain Duncan Smith's special adviser, Philippa) have a number of "social action projects", including crisis pregnancy and post-abortion counselling, parenting lessons and helping ex-offenders. Women with unwanted pregnancies are recast, in this parlance, as another "vulnerable" group. "Vulnerable", by the way, is just Tory for "you're a big social problem, but we don't judge" – so a family on the breadline is "vulnerable" and so is a prostitute; a Muslim student who tutors think might turn extremist is "vulnerable", and so is an ex-con. What the implications are of this new terminology is a conversation to have another day, but it will surprise any woman who's been accidentally pregnant to find that, by dint of her fertility, she's joined the ranks of vulnerability.
But right now none of that is the problem: the problem is that this amendment expressly removes the right of organisations such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service to impart information. Immediately, then, the process of getting an abortion is disrupted. If you can't get information from the provider, you have to go elsewhere: that "elsewhere" is at your GP's discretion. You might find that New Frontiers is the only place to go. Or you might find that there's just a leaflet.
So let's go back to why Dorries objects to the BPAS's advice. She claims they are salesmen, motivated by profit to encourage abortions. I have a grudging admiration for the way she takes a classic leftwing argument – don't trust the suits, they're in it for themselves – and uses it against the classically leftwing constituency of pro-choicers. But this joke isn't funny any more: BPAS is a charity. There is no profit motive.
Dorries reserves particular anger for the consultation process at BPAS, which she described to me when I interviewed her recently: "When you go in for an abortion, you're counselled in this room which has no end of soft-marketing techniques around you, you are told, don't worry, three out of four women have had this at your age. That's like going into an off-licence and saying 'Is this wine nice?', and them saying, 'Well, we sell a lot of it'."
That figure is wrong: it's one in three. The phraseology is wrong: they don't have a little chart to tell them what proportion of women have had an abortion and in which age group. The description is wrong – soft marketing techniques? It's just a room with some chairs. Just by having had an abortion, I already know infinitely more that either Dorries or theLabour MP Frank Field, neither of whom have ever contacted BPAS to ask about its consultation process or look around a clinic. They have no evidence of biased advice, but Field dismissed that point this week with this unbelievable analogy: "We had no evidence of mis-selling of pensions until people investigated." Never mind that: out of the blue he wants us to judge a charity by the same standards as a dishonest financial corporation. If he does think this should be investigated, why not investigate? Why just remove the advice function from abortion clinics on grounds that you've got no evidence for and you haven't examined in the slightest?
Dorries says that she is pro-choice, but wants to see the time limit brought down. Her amendment would of course necessarily delay the process. More to the point, in 2000 40% of abortions performed by BPAS were at under 10 weeks. In 2010, that figure was 75%. They modestly put this down to Poundland starting to sell cheaper pregnancy tests, but it is also down to their excellent standards of care. In other words, if you are an MP who holds the same views as Dorries and Field – you are pro-choice, but want to see the gestational age of aborted foetuses brought down – then two main organisations meeting that aim are, by design, BPAS; and, by accident, Poundland.
There is a second amendment that also sounds innocuous: to remove responsibility for abortion guidelines from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and give it to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Again, the aim is to discredit the Royal College committee that does the guidelines. "They're all abortionists! They all earn their livings from abortions," Dorries told me.
Every line – from the pro-choice intent and the slurs against BPAS and the RCOG, to the fake "independence" of the bodies waiting to take on this counselling – every element of these two amendments is mendacious. MPs who are pro-choice should be fighting harder, if not for women, then for their own credibility. Even MPs who are anti-abortion should consider if they can, in conscience, support an argument that has been so dishonestly made. To my mind, this is more dangerous to parliamentary process, and the reputation of politicians, than it is to women's reproductive health. It's grubby and it's secretive: it's backstreet politics.
From the Guardian newspaper by Zoe Williams
UK Parliament, I am dissapoint. Seriously. I've so far not needed an abortion, but to put it bluntly, I would rather slap a 'religious councilor' than listen to their stupid fucking religious based entreaties for me to keep the damn pregnancy. I can't believe Dorries is even getting away with this. Ugh.
~Mooglets