Nadine Dorries' campaign has already succeeded

Nadine Dorries MP has to wait a few more hours before she'll learn if her fellow MPs will vote for a lower limit on abortion.  Regardless of how MPs vote our belief is that Nadine has already succeeded to a considerable extent.  Her campaign - which has been featured by every major broadcaster and newspaper - has reminded people that the unborn child has humanity.  People can disagree as to the nature of that humanity but more pregnant women know more about the foetus growing inside them because of the re-emergence of the abortion debate.  There are many aspects of America's abortion debate that are unattractive but at least there is a public debate about an enormously important moral issue.

The Telegraph editorialises today that the upper limit is not the real issue and points to a lack of investment in informing women of "the medical and psychological trauma of abortion".  We have sympathy with that view.  More useful than any other reform would be the introduction of 'fully-informed consent'.  Nadine Dorries is herself in favour of that kind of reform and has previously proposed what she called a 'cooling off period':

"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."

Following today's vote we'll be publishing a guide to how every Tory MP voted.

Comments

[Jennifer Wells]

You are completely right. Unborn children will be alive in a few months because of Nadine Dorries. Women who have seen videos like the one you post above and who have seen the scans in the Daily Mail will realise what is growing inside them.

You are a lifesaver Nadine. You are a lifesaver.

[Will Stobart]

I bet my MP abstains, she's been absent on every single one of these votes so far.

[A.Viewer]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN FOR CONTAINING PERSONAL ABUSE.

[Tory Member]

I entirely agree with A.Viewer. This comes so close to a crucial By-election in a Labour heartland we have a very good chance of winning. Whatever the media says the Conversative Party still has a big image problem. Bringing up issues like this can only undo the fantastic work that has been done by the party to change this.

Watching David Modell's 'In God's Name' on Channel 4 last nights showed how the extreme christian right with Homophobic and Racist Views are influencing policy makers. The interview with Nadine Dorries at the end was frightening as she admitted how closely she worked with these groups.

I know if I was a disaffected Labour voter in Crewe who watched this I might think again about switching to the Tories.

[Cameron Watt]

Well done, Nadine. 'Fully informed consent' is long overdue so women considering abortion can come to a considered view. However the increasing evidence on foetal pain and the viability of unborn babies younger than 24 weeks will hopefully lead MPs to vote for a reduction in the upper limit on terminations.

[Concerned]

Hmmm... I am very uneasy with the stance this website takes on this issue - almost willing the abortion debate to be pushed into the fore US style, in a way that we have thankfully avoided.

Anyone who watched Dispatches last night will have seen how Nadine was taken in by someone who can only be described as a religious extremist - whilst I have sympathy for a reduction to 20 weeks she must avoid allying herself to extremists

[Jennifer Wells]

The last two comments are as unethical as they are out of touch.

Unethical because the timing of by-election shouldn't decide one's ethics.

Out of touch because most voters and most women support a lower time limit.

[Saltmaker]

Considering that the government target waiting time is three weeks, the 10 day cooling off period is a complete red herring. What you actually want is the informed consent bit where, by “informed”, you mean subjected to arbitrary moralising.

[Ed]

I watched Dispatches - Nadine got a lawyer to draft her amendment for free.
Speaking as a lawyer, smart move.
The same lawyer also drafts amendments for Labour MPs.
I have nothing but admiration for the way this woman has had both the courage and bravery to fight her corner. I wish we had more MPs of conviction.

[Vince]

Great video at the top of this post. I hope everyone will watch it. It makes Tim's point about what Nadine has achieved by simply having this debate.

[MagicAldo]

Reading A. Viewer and Tory Member reminds us that "Conservative" does not equte to conservative, and never did.

What the HFE votes tell us is that we need a serious realignment of UK politics. There are clearly two real "parties": one is traditional, socially conservative and patriotic. The other is atheist, liberal and supranationalist.

The sooner this cleavage is formalised in our political system, the better for all of us.

[matthew]

Don't we have enough unwanted children in this country? How is it a positive thing to force women who have got as far as 20 weeks but are still determined that they do not want a child, to have the baby?

[Sean Fear]

"I strongly disagree with assessment of Nadine Dorries campaign. In my experience it has alienated precisely the demographic the party has only recently succeeded in re-engaging"

Polling evidence does not support that contention.

[Sean Fear]

"Don't we have enough unwanted children in this country? "

How do you know that?

[matthew]

Well there are certainly vast numbers of feral children lacking parental guidance in London. I'm not concerned at the issue of 20-24 week-old foetuses being aborted frankly.

The idea that the unborn life of a child whom its mother wishes to abort is something I'd seek to preserve against her wishes is not one I'd rationally conflate with the evidence I see around me.

I'm sure once science becomes sufficiently advanced even younger foetuses might become viable, but it doesn't change my view.

[Will Stobart]

I'd recommend everyone to watch the debate from now.

Ian Duncan Smith is making an extremely good speech on the subject of the need for a father figure.

[chris]

Frankly the way the pro-life lobby has succeeded in distorting plain facts (children born at 20wks have the odds against them of becoming surviving to become fully functioning humans) is shameful. There is no case to lower the limit

It actually makes me less likely to be voting Tory as we seems ever more drifting into the extremes of the Neo-Con US style right wingery with this sort of moralising.

[Sean Fear]

"Well there are certainly vast numbers of feral children lacking parental guidance in London"

It doesn't mean they're not wanted. It simply means they're badly brought up.

[Sean Fear]

"It actually makes me less likely to be voting Tory as we seems ever more drifting into the extremes of the Neo-Con US style right wingery with this sort of moralising."

But, were you ever likely to vote Tory in the first place?

Or is this going to be like one of the Boris Johnson threads, where all sorts of "Conservatives" used to post saying they couldn't bring themselves to vote for him?

[Pro-Choice Tory]

I started off pro-life, but read Dorries' work and have changed position.

This is not intended to be offensive, but a statement of fact. She is, by a long shot, the least able politician I have ever come across.

It is manifestly clear that there is no evidence on increasing viability at earlier stages.

I think this approach amounts to theocratic bullying, Tim. Shame on you.

The Party is getting increasingly hijacked by Christians and I find it troubling, to say the least.

[MagicAldo]

This site is getting increasingly hijacked by liberals and I find it troubling.

[matthew]

"But, were you ever likely to vote Tory in the first place?"

"This site is getting increasingly hijacked by liberals"

I don't know why people seem to believe anyone who supports abortion is not a Tory.

I would like to dismantle the welfare state, cut taxes, and numerous other right-wing policies, but I don't see the connection between that and forcing people to have children they do not want.

The BEST way to reduce irresponsible behaviour is to make people more responsible for their behaviour by reducing the size of the welfare state. That will reduce the number of abortions far more than gestures like this one.

[Michael Davidson]

I sincerely hope Nadine Dorries loses her vote tonight.

We are Conservatives, not Republicans and we don't need illiberal measures like the ones she and Edward Leigh are proposing.

[Editor]

Pro-Choice Tory: "I think this approach amounts to theocratic bullying, Tim. Shame on you."

Please show me evidence of "theocratic bullying".

[John W]

This is a free vote, not a party political issue. Nadine raised the amendment as an MP, the representative of her constituents, if they are unhappy with her move they will vote her out. The Conservative Party's behaviour throughout the debating of this Bill has been a shining example of the strength and splendour of our democracy - the same cannot be said for the Labour Party.

If you disagree with her, then disagree with her - but what is a ll this nonsense about Republicans etc.

[Potteries]

I think this thread illustrates what a difficult and divisive issue this can be, but if politicians and elected MP's like Nadine can't tackle this subject, then who can? Abortion remains a moral/ethical, and yes religious issue, but you have to legislate on it. They do on the continent at 13 weeks, so why is the UK so different?

[Neil Wilson]

You don't have to be a Christian, or a Conservative for that matter, to believe that a situation where a baby's life is being saved in one room, whilst the life of a baby the same age is being ended down the road, is wrong.

This vote is about ending this situation and has little relevance in the overall debate.

Hopefully enough MPs will see that the current situation is intolerable, and vote to change it.

[Matt Wright]

Discussing these issues is exactly what democracy is about and being an elected representative means taking decisions, sometime difficult ones. Nadine has been willing to speak out and should be applauded for engaging the issue not told she is a "medieval relic". Incidentally as to whether this does or doesn't play well politically, firstly it is a free vote issue but secondly I think it has no bearing and if anything a reduction in the upper limit has support across the demographics.

[Abe]

I'm a staunch and lifelong paid-up Tory. I campaigned for Major, Hague and Howard and voted for Cameron in 2005. I'm a Eurosceptic, I believe in lower taxes, I believe in supporting families and I'm particularly keen to see a Davis-run Home Office.

There are two issues, ever, on which I've substantially disagreed with a Cameron position. One was on grammar schools. The second is on 20 weeks.

I strongly support the government's positions on the embryology bill. I support 24 weeks. I support hybrid embryos. I appreciate the logic of requiring a 'male role model' but I'm unclear as to how this will help in practice.

I find many of the supposedly pro-life positions naive -- more concerned with the cuddly stuff ("Save babies!") than the intangible, ugly, hidden reality (the alternative -- the prospects and fate of a new life, its mother and all those that life will interact with over the 70, 80, 100 years).

As a lifelong carer for a family member, it's struck me that people will get very riled up for people with singular, clearly-diagnosed disabilities which you can sell on a bumper sticker, but anything messy or unsure or unattractive or complicated often gets shoved aside. Most people are happy with a binary world -- kill or save babies, help or abandon blind people. But so much in this world is complicated, messy, ugly, cruel.

I find most of the arguments against aspects of this bill flimsy, based on lurid sensationalism, distorted false emotion, or simply out of touch.

I don't think badly of Nadine, whose blog I enjoy from time to time, and I understand she's well-intentioned. To the extent that it makes people who don't have to abort consider the consequences, I'd be tempted to agree that it's something of a success. And I'm not one of these people who would boo her for raising it at all. But personally, I think she's dead wrong on this issue.

As for my feelings for the party... I'd be lying if, for the space of a heartbeat, I wondered if the party isn't the right place for me. But the comments on these threads are heartening. And besides, where else am I going to go? I don't believe in PR, the Euro and immigration amnesties like the LibDems. I don't believe in ID cards, fat government and the monstrous programme of waste and tax advocated by Labour. I'm an ardent, passionate Conservative. But just this once, I'm in the strange and alien position of rooting for Brown...

[MagicAldo]

I fully understand Abe's sense of alienation from the Party when he sees some of its leaders articulating pro-life, pro-marriage opinions.

But he should also acknowledge that there are many others who feel equally alienated when they hear Conservative MPs articulating pro-abortion, anti-marriage views - John Bercow, to take one example.

[Svejk]

The relationship between Nadine Dorries MP and her anti-abortion backers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnHqTL6TEjo

Dorries is increasingly lacking credibility. In Parliament she's known as 'Mad Nad' - you can see where it comes from...

[Sean Fear]

We're a broad church, with differing views on ethical questions. But no one seriously doubts that people who vote Conservative, are party members, and MPs, are more likely to be socially conservative than people who vote Labour or Lib Dem or belong to those parties. No one could really dispute that our members and voters are more likely to agree with Nadine Dorries than with John Bercow on this issue.

Which is why I'm a bit sceptical about some of the comments here.

[Pro-Choice Tory]

Tim -

This site's strength should used to lie in recognising that the Party is a broad church. You always had weird views (backing Liam Fox is simply inexplicable) but the site was a place where Tory activists could discuss things.

However, I think it is troubling that you laud this as a conscience issue on one hand, and are planning to stigmatise those of our MPs who exercise their consciences to vote against your preferred line. Those atheists in our party are just as principled and as Tory as the evangelical God-botherers. I assume that will not be the line you intend to take, especially as you seem to regret the lack of politicisation of the issue.

As an aside, this argument has been painfully embarassing for those of us who believe in the Enlightenment. There is a case for reducing the limit, but it is clearly not based on foetal viability but on common or garden ethics.

There is simply no evidence of improved survival rates below 24 weeks. Nadine Dorries' hectoring "analysis" is just bad maths. As I said, she is not up to the task. Iain Dale's claim that foetuses of under 20 weeks survive is simply wrong.

[Norm Brainer]

Yup.. totally agree with abe on this one... and the other comments above.
Before the debate I didn't really have an opinion but thought it probably sounded reasonable to reduce it.
After seeing Nadine's comments that seem to be mostly emotionally or politically based, and other arguments, I would like it to stay as 24 - It's weird agreeing with Brown!

[CJH]

"Those atheists in our party are just as principled and as Tory as the evangelical God-botherers."

It also shouldn't be assumed that it's just atheists who are anti the reduction in the time limit. I'm a practicing member of the Church of England and I certainly don't accept that the science makes a case for a reduction from 24 weeks.

[Nimble Hippo]

Don't try and compare this to the U.S. where the anti-abortion lobby tries to go about their businees in completely the wrong way by removing funding, and making abortion as hard as possible in all circumstances.
Nadine has conducted a noble campaign, and getting any sort of a reduction would be a success not just for the babies that it would save, but for the wider message it sends that abortion is not contraception.

Also let us not forget that this is a non-party political issue.

[Miles]

Abe & Pro-Choice Tory---excellent pieces. You are both absolutely right. A lot of people in the Party want us to go the way of the Republicans, which would just be suicide, but this is a politics aside issue. Good to read your views that I agree with

[ChrisD]

"Following today's vote we'll be publishing a guide to how every Tory MP voted."

Can I ask why that is deemed necessary on a free vote?

I have to agree with this comment from Prochoice Tory.
"However, I think it is troubling that you laud this as a conscience issue on one hand, and are planning to stigmatise those of our MPs who exercise their consciences to vote against your preferred line."

To honest, it smacks of that abhorrent use of the abortion issue in American politics, I don't want to see it giving succour in our political system.
Lets take the politics out of this and trust our Parliament to do the right thing. I am really angry that Gordon Brown has insisted on a three line whip for the final reading, we are doing the right thing, lets not put this kind unfair and unnecessary pressure on our own MP's.

I actually would prefer to see the abortion limit lowered ideally to 20 weeks, but 22 weeks would be preferable to the present limit. I would also like Nick Palmer's amendment to be successful too.

[Sean Fear]

How is seeking a modest reduction in the time limit at which abortion takes place "going the same way as the Republicans"?

Are the French, Germans, and Swedes just like the US Republicans, because they have more restrictive abortion laws than we have?

WRT religion, it shouldn't be assumed that anyone who wants more restrictive abortion laws is a Christian, as I'm sure Justin Hinchliffe will be happy to testify.

[David]

"more pregnant women know more about the foetus growing inside them because of the re-emergence of the abortion debate. "

How utterly patronising and offensive. You think that women who face the decision to have an abortion don't find it hard?

[Editor]

Pro-Choice Tory: I hope ConHome remains a place where people of all views can have their say. I have not attempted to silence anyone. Just look at this thread.

[Editor]

ChrisD: A list of how Tory MPs voted is surely more important on a free vote where the party will be divided. On a whipped vote it is exceptional for our MPs to disagree.

[ChrisD]

"ChrisD: A list of how Tory MPs voted is surely more important on a free vote where the party will be divided."

Tim, I genuinely think that to add "Following today's vote we'll be publishing a guide to how every Tory MP voted." at the end of your article before the issue had been voted on was a mistake. I do think it brings in a political dimension and puts a much more subtle form of pressure on the Conservative MP's who to be fair have been given a free vote on this issue.
It is making the abortion debate political which is something I feel very strongly should not be.
Of course there will Conservatives going through different lobbies on this issue, but the fact that you see this as something that will divide the party rather than our MP's being free to follow their own convictions or concious speaks for itself.
On this single issue, I honestly do not think that I can hold it against my own MP (Libdem by the way) if it turns out that he has a different view.

[Ken Stevens]

I'm not religious, though to define me as atheist or agnostic would be inferring a degree of contemplation that I've never applied to the topic.

Nor have I thought much about the subject of abortion before, so I had no preconceived stance.

Having read the various material and opinions, the idea that a late abortion entails dismembering a distinctly human form (irrespective of its unviability outside the womb)is a horrendous one and should be contemplated with the greatest reluctance and only where the consequences of continuing to full term are of similar or greater levels of distress. Late stage abortion should not be an option on social or personal choice grounds. It must not by then be viewed as the post-facto contraception that "women's right to choose" seems often to imply

[Fiona]

I totally disagree with "A Viewer" at 14.22 above, who attacks people I know in a totally personal, unfounded and ridiculous way. I know for a fact that those involved in the prolife movement have done so much good to help women.

There is no way you can describe people who believe in defending the rights of tiny babies, the right of women to have more information and support, and the right of the public to see abortion rather than have the truth withheld from them (isn't that an absolute right in a democracy?) as souless bigots.

As far as I am concerned, the Conservative party is a courageous party, when it defends the most vulnerable, when it seeks to help women, when it seeks to listen and respond to the evidence, when it seeks to have joined up thinking and apply the principle of protecting the vulnerable (as all people believe) to those who are just a little younger before birth, rather than believing in surestarts for every child only after a certain age.

I absolutely loved the moment when a certain MP asked for investigative journalists to investigate abortion. I believe in freedom of speech and getting away from the euphemisms of the pro-abortion movement.

To say as "A Viewer" does that the Conservatives support a smaller state and therefore should let abortion be a matter for individual choice completely ignores the point that every Conservative believes in some criminal justice system. We all believe that some actions should be banned in order to protect the rights of others.

Real freedom does not come from allowing anyone to do anything but protecting the most vulnerable to ensure their freedom.

[Margaret on the Guillotine]

COMMENTER BANNED.

[Hardcore Conservative]

On a slightly different subject:

The Daily Mail Online is reporting tonight that MPs have voted to scrap the need for IVF doctors to consider a child's need for a male role model/father etc.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1020344/MPs-reject-IVF-right-father-Government-defeats-fresh-challenge-fertility-laws.html

What a nice little socialist utopia we are becoming.

[Saltmaker]

There is no way you can describe people who believe in defending the rights of tiny babies, the right of women to have more information and support, and the right of the public to see abortion rather than have the truth withheld from them (isn't that an absolute right in a democracy?) as souless bigots.

Fiona, I have to ask:

1. Who is suggesting that information or support should be restricted?

2. Who is suggesting that the truth be withheld?

3. Do you know the difference between a foetus and a baby?

[Sean Fear]

"COMMENTER BANNED."

Not before time.

[Fiona]

Dear Saltmaker

1. Information and support is not available on the NHS, through BPAS or Marie Stopes. On abortion providers websites and leaflets there is no information about the development of the baby or what abortion involves. Womem are not given sufficient support or alternatives to abortion. I know cases where mothers have felt pressurised by doctors into having a termination based on a diagnosis of disability.

2. The truth has never been shown on TV. All the TV channels have banned showing abortion. The case against censorship went to the High Court and Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no justification for banning images of abortion on the grounds that they were factual and not sensationalised. The House of Lords subsequently overruled the Court of Appeal judgement.

3. The difference between a foetus and a baby is before and after birth, it's a difference in terminology depending on your point of view of whether the baby is wanted or unwanted. The entity - the human being - is the same.