Nadine Dorries campaigns for 'a woman's right to know'

Abortion will be on the Commons' agenda today as Tory MP Nadine Dorries MP introduces a Ten Minute Rule Bill concerning terminations of pregnancy (BBC and Nadine's own blog).

The Conservative backbencher declares herself to be in favour of a woman's right to choose but wants a reduction in the number of abortions.  The TMRB has no chance of becoming law but Nadine Dorries is committed to using other parliamentary opportunities, including Westminster Hall debates, to draw public attention to the issue as part of a concerted, long-term campaign. 

Today's TMRB enjoys the support of former Tory leaders Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard.  It has three components:

1. A reduction in the abortion time limit from 24 to 21 weeks.  The 21 week limit reflects the latest scientific evidence on foetal sentience (the unborn child's response to pain and sound) rather than viability (the unborn child's likelihood of surviving outside of the womb).  The image on the right is of an unborn child of 24 weeks.  More images and a movie can be seen here via the orange/ brown link on the Create Health website.
2. A full-informed consent to abortion after a cooling-off period - 'a woman's right to know'.  Nadine Dorries: "Such a cooling-off period is necessary, because the decision to terminate a pregnancy or not is one with which the woman concerned will have to live for the rest of her life. It is imperative that this decision is fully considered, and that all the necessary help and advice is available for her to make an informed decision. This part of the bill is designed to enforce a woman’s right to know.  There is no pressure on a woman to decide either way. The woman does indeed have the right to choose. The cooling-off period gives her this time to reflect on her decision. It is also a time when parents, partners, boyfriends etc will have to stand back and give the woman time to reflect."  This is at the heart of the TMRB and where introduced in other parts of the world has produced significant reductions in the number of terminations.
3. Timely access to abortion once a woman has made a "fully informed and empowered decision" to terminate her pregnancy.

Download brief PDF guide_to_Nadine_Dorries'_TMRB.

Endnote: 187 to 108 MPs reject Nadine Dorries' attempt to amend abortion laws - BBC

Comments

[deborah]

Has anyone got any facts on the actual time lapse between going into a clinic for advice and having the operation?
What is the recommended statutory delay?

[Gareth]

What a thoroughly dishonest bill. A blatant attempt to restrict a woman's right to choose dressed up in 'concern' for the Mother.

[Martin Coxall]

That baby looks like Bernard Ingham. Is this supposed to stand as some kind of argument for or against abortion?

[TomTom]

Funny how the Hippocratic Oath was discarded because of Abortion and is now a relic not relevant to doctors any longer.

There are questions though when you have a shortage of obstetricians and gynaecologists (not that people like this speciality much) to have them tied up on abortions and then the situation at Addenbbrookes where they are disposing of aborted foetuses in the hospital furnace to save the £18.50 cremation fee (which really the mother should pay)makes you wonder how the NHS is using resources.

There are 600 abortions each day which i s a lot of medical practitioner hours......say you can do it in 30 minutes that is 300 hours daily which on an 6 hour shift say would yield 50 doctors/daily doing abortions plus nurses and theatres.

I don't know if the same gynaecologist works each day on abortions or whether it is on rota..........but let's say you need 100 doctors/day doing nothing but abortions.

I know doctors who want nothing to do with abortions, and have met others who make a very good living doing them

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/AbortionTimeLimits~International

[sjm]

Deborah, re time delays - in our urban neck of the woods, if you can afford to have a private scan pronto, it's a day or so for assessment locally at Marie Stopes, then 4/5 days to abortion, depending on how busy they are.

I think men and women have equal rights to discuss abortion, but the difference between the pro-lifers and pro-abortionists IMO is the busybody factor - the pro's want to dictate to others, the pro-abortionists believe it is a matter of individual choice.

[Tom Ainsworth]

I am unclear what the pro-lifers think about miscarriages. I am told these are extremely common in the early weeks of pregnancy, and often occur without the woman even knowing she is pregnant. If these miscarried foetuses are worth as much as a fully grown human life, shouldn't we plough much of the money that goes into researching treatments for cancer etc. into preventing miscarriages? I certainly don't think so.

[Londoner]

J Machie said: "On the whole they (those who decide on an abortion) are more responsible than those who choose to go through with an accidental pregnancy which the father may not want or wish to support."

I guess this stakes out the divide between the instinctive pro-abortionists and those of us who find the numbers of abortions going on in our midst a sickening tragedy. Those of us in the latter category (whatever we want the law to do about it) are just so far from agreeing with the values implied by that statement that it is difficult to see where any common ground can be found. I never felt that strongly about it until I saw my own child's ultrasound image at an early stage of pregnancy - that was a clearly defined individual being there, with distinctive features already at that early stage, and a continuity with the being who is now my 19 year old son.

Incidentally, if the father's willingness to support is a deciding factor (does this just mean economic support? - what a sickening moral compass), does it mean if he wants the baby, and would support it, that he should have a say in the decision? I don't think in practice he can, but that is the implication if the father's support is paramount. Why is the option of giving up a baby for adoption so little considered, to the extent that people have to go to Africa and Asia if they want to adopt?

The decisions are difficult in individual cases, I would be the last to deny that, which is why I do not take an absolutist legal view, but I am very sad for the people who don't start with some appreciation of the magic of the creation of a new life.

Incidentally, a major reason for the shortage of gynaecologists, I am sure, is that they have to spend so much of their time doing needless abortions. If you go into medicine out of any sort of altruism to save lives, it sort of goes against the grain doesn't it?

[Londoner]

Mark at 16:15 said: "Reducing the normal limit to 21 weeks in-line with a degree of sentience is sensible."

Let us be clear about the basis of the suggestion of 21 weeks - this is the earliest at which it is now judged that independent survival outside the womb is possible. "Sentience" comes way before that. To suggest that there is not a "degree of sentience" much, much earlier than 21 weeks flies in the face of reality. I stand corrected by expert opinion - but I should think sentience is between 8 and 12 weeks at the most, with a strong body of opinion saying even earlier. Look at a 12 week ultrasound moving image if you doubt that.

[comstock]

Mark said Deep down I guess there's a desire to see wrong-doers get the full consequences, including women who have irresponsible sex.

Come on you can hardly equate irresponsible sex with murder! Who says it's the woman being irresponsible anyway?

Are you *seriously* suggesting women should be made to have a baby as a punishment for their 'sins'!?!

[Michael McGowan]

Mark Fulford, I tend to agree with you in that I support abortion within limits but do not support the death penalty pretty much at all. However, if hram is the criterion, it is a pretty elusive one: you and I would be pushed to defend opposition to the death on harm grounds.

What a pity that we have to be treated to Gareth's usual brand of abuse and blinkered dogmatism. Women no more have an unfettered right to choose than I have an unfettered right to drink and drive.

[Andrea]

The division list is out.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/03.htm

The majority of Con MPs voted for Dorries bill. Some voted against though (looking fast through the names, I see Ken Clarke, Bercow, Fabricant, Kirkbride, Lait, Ottaway, Viggers, Young)

[Richard]

""Ardent" better applies to supporters of the death penalty – but to be pro-death (penalty) yet pro-life truly does seem incoherent"

How? I am opposed to abortion because I believe the baby is innocent. The same cannot be said for a murderer.

[Paul newman]

As someone who is not terribly fussed one way or another, I have been trying to get to grips with the principle about which such passions are aroused. The relevance of foetal sentience seems to me to be fairly moot out side a religious frame work that draws an absolute distinction between a human being and any other sort of life. A fish, I suppose, is sentient, probably more so, and we are not yet seriously discussing banning anglers. Watch this space. The ability to sustain life outside the womb is similarly free floating. A three year old would not last long unaided.
I suspect then, and no doubt others have said the same, that the discussion of medical or scientific boundaries is a code for religious or metaphysical beliefs which perhaps should be more explicit than they are here. So I would suggest that what this discussion lacks, and what I cannot supply, is an explicit Christian view of the moral basis lurking behind the science.
The notion of allowing abortion after full term might be justified scientifically on the basis that the foetal stage in humans as compared to our near relatives continues long after full term. This is a very distinctive adaptive feature of humans and key to some of the variant features we have as compared to other apes.
I would not make such an argument of course, but if science is the answer I do not see any special reason, why one should not. Indeed , in past ages the survival or otherwise of the infant was handled with a robust acceptance out of necessity and only the romantic period discovered the extreme value for the infant we have today. …………. And so I could go on. I feel I could construct numerous reasonable proposals up to and including chasing miscreant teenagers down the street with a baseball bat if they failed the boy David’s “Adult “test. In fact he’s a bit young himself.
The Christian view , I assume says the unborn child has a Soul and would not countenance any sort of abortion. The non religious view might conceivable take us to a disgusting end point . As I am not able to find any good reason except squeamishness and mess to stop the culling of a three month year old child , less sentient than a cat say , I am inclined to the view that the Christians are right and its murder from day one .
This will no doubt be a disaster for the mother on occasion but also the father and , no doubt the child. Shame ; the continued health of my current employer is quite astonishingly inconvenient to me and this brings me onto euthanasia.
So here is my point , as Science is quite clearly not the moral point and nor is convenience , is this a question of morality , or is it something else . If so what ?

Perhaps this basic stuff is really old hat to everyone but me , I don’t often get the time to pop in .

[Patsy Sergeant]

Like Annabel and sjm, I remember the 1950's and back street abortion, and the only contraception for women being the Dutch cap a cumbersome contraption. Of course for men the was/is the simple condom, which of course - like today they do not like to use, I would suggest for selfish reasons - I HAVE actually heard some!! On Jeremy Kyle nearly every morning EVEN TODAY, there are stupid youths smirking when he suggests that it is possible to use contraception if they don't want to produce a baby from intercourse. Of course nowadays as there is the pill, men seem to think that because the woman COULD use the pill if she wanted, that it is her fault if she gets pregnant, the thought that they - the men - might actaully TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY for making babies, rather than just pontificate on a woman's right to abortion AFTER they have irresponsibly HAD THEIR WAY, beats me!!
No doubt that will get all you men in a fluster!!!

[Paddywhack]

A large number of MPs are known to support a reduction in the time limit but oppose the cooling-off period (e.g. Kirkbride is an example). Some pro-life MPs also appear to have voted against - probably because the bill actively promotes fasttracking women once they think an abortion is okay (e.g. Jim Dobbin, Labour - and I see 3 other MPs, plus a whole host of MPs who abstained like Ann Widdecombe).

In any case the bill probably would have still been lost because not enough Labour MPs think there's something wrong with killing a 6 month old foetus. There's a danger that if Dorries continues to campaign on this issue she will simply deter Lefties even more. Perhaps it's better for a Labour MP to run with this issue.

[PW]

To me this is an issue of the value we place on human life. Surely taking innocent life should not be the automatic solution to unwanted pregnancies as it seems to be now in so many cases, when there are other options such as adoption. I remember of hearing of one mother who, on discovering she was pregnant with her 5th child, was immediately offered an abortion. It was assumed the baby was unwanted (it wasn’t!) and disposing the child was to be the automatic solution without much thought. That a society can discard a child because it is thought to be too inconvenient must show the depths to which we have sunk, and how cheaply we regard life.

As for Mrs Dorries’ Bill, if one's view is that human life begins at conception, then debate about time limits is more a side issue, and of course most abortions happen earlier anyway. Yes I would prefer to see all abortions outlawed except in the few instances where the mother's physical life is in danger because of the pregnancy. But I wonder if this Bill deserved support if the provision speeding up the process after the cooling-off was removed, and as long as it wasn’t amended to make early abortions easier. The Bill, with the “cooling-off”, and giving the woman “the right to know” the information she needs to decide, including the long-term mental health consequences of abortion, must have stood the chance of saving at least some children.

Anyway, surely it cannot be implied that MPs can never seek to tighten the abortion law in case a pro-abortion MP tries to use such a Bill to get easier early abortions? If life does begin at conception, earlier abortions surely would not make it any more moral, nor reduce the long term emotional damage. But perhaps attempts at legislation should be made when the desired result has a prospect of being achieved, i.e saving as many children as possible.

[Sally Roberts]

Well said, Patsy @ 22:07! But of course the majority of the bone-headed "yoofs" on shows like Jeremy Kyle's have no degree of maturity or empathy with their partners - let alone in most cases even any genuine fondness for them!

[Mike Christie]

Patsy, as your post quite neatly sums up the views of many irresponsible men, I doubt you'll get anyone in a fluster, unless you're suggesting we're all the same :-)

[Tory Loyalist]

Certainly a move in the right direction.

And isn't it time we started calling the "pro-choice" element exactly what they are.

Pro-death.

[Michael McGowan]

Richard, I understand the distinction you are making although I do not support the death penalty.

The one that I never understand ethically is (i) total opposition to the death penalty in conjunction with (ii) support for an unrestricted right to abortion, even to term. Yet this is a standard "liberal" position. The fact that John Bercow voted against Dorries' bill makes me more rather than less supportive of it.

[spagbob]

brilliant idea, if only it could become law, we'd finally start moving back towards being a civilised society again, one where we don't musrder our children in the name of "convenience". there is no reason this bill should be opposed by anyone - it pleases the pro-life if it will lead to the number of abortion's falling, and it won't really change the situation for pro-choicer's so why should it not be law.

[Mark Fulford]

"murder", "death", "innocent life"...

These words only apply once a real life has begun. Deciding that point in time is the crux of the abortion debate. Life does not begin the moment a child is born. Nor does it begin the moment a sperm merges with an ovum. The answer lies somewhere in between.

[tired and emotional]

If a child can survive outside the womb then it is alive... it can feel pain and respond to stimuli it is alive.

[Peter]

Michael I wouldnot put Clarke in the libertarian bracket so he can be let off.
Annabel and Sjm I think you need to change your views as you seem to be supporting perfect baby syndrome. Only government i know who supported this was the one I stated before?

[Paul newman]

If a child can survive outside the womb then it is alive... it can feel pain and respond to stimuli it is alive.

So is a fish .Or a dog . It is less alive than an elephant ( see the sentience test). I see obstetricians are recommending euthenasia for severely disabled new borns .

The logic of this debate allows all sorts of disgusting conclusions and this shows it to be wrong

[Karen Davies]

I am a young woman hopefully I will never bt in the situation where I would be considering an abortion, but you never know I may be raped! I believe that if I had an unwantedly pregnancy and I want rid of the featus then I believe the law should allow me at any stage, as it is my body. enough of this religious rubbish that the foetus is seen as a 'baby' at conception. I should have the choice, it is my body! keep the 24 week rule if not extend it!