Senior Tories promise to vote for lower abortion limit

The Daily Mail lists some of the senior Tories who are backing all-party efforts to reduce the time limit for abortions:

• David Cameron favours a cut to 21 or 22 weeks (from the current 24).
• Chris Grayling favours 20 weeks and told the Mail: "If we are in a position where babies can survive at 23 weeks, then 24 weeks is utterly unacceptable."
• Liam Fox: "I am going to vote for a reduction to 20 weeks. Our laws are much too liberal."  During the Conservative leadership race Dr Fox, a former GP, called for a 12 week limit: "I think that a society that actually aborts 180,000 unborn children every year is a society that needs to be asking a lot of questions about itself… For me it's a simple personal belief. It says, thou shall not kill, it doesn't say, thou shall not kill unless Parliament says it's OK."
• William Hague is going to support a lower limit.
• David Davis also is thought to favour a lower limit.
• Andrew Lansley favours a reduction to 22 weeks but also favours a more liberal regime for earlier abortions: "If a woman needs an abortion, then it must be better for that to be an early and medical abortion, rather than later and surgical."

The campaign for twenty weeks is being led by Nadine Dorries MP.  The campaign's website lists twenty reasons why the abortion limit should be reduced to twenty weeks.

Not all Tories are on Ms Dorries' side of the argument.  On her blog she described how John Bercow described her views as "antediluvian" and "prejudiced".  She also writes this:

"Late surgical abortions mean that a baby is dismembered in the womb, and removed limb by limb, head often last.  Professor Anand, incredibly well respected and acknowledged as the world's leading expert in foetal pain, believes that a foetus feels pain as low as 18 weeks gestation. Before the dismembering takes place, the baby is injected with a lethal injection of Potassium into its heart, via the mother's abdominal wall. I will leave it to you to imagine how much distress and pain this may cause the baby."

ConservativeHome wishes her every success with her campaign and we are proud that most senior Tories are on her side.

Comments

[Richard]

Perhaps Mr Bercow might like to take a look at a poll taken a while ago (I'm sure it was linked to on here at some point) showing a majority supporting a reduction in term limits. Surprisingly (or maybe not), women were more keen than men.

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

Do we not need to consider how many women out there who have had abortions are also voters?

More than 6 million abortions have been performed since abortion was legalised.
If you reduce the limit to 20 weeks then in practice noone will perform an abortion if you are thought to be more than 18 weeks pregnant.

Also with waiting times etc you cannot be more than 16 weeks pregnant to be sure of falling within the 20 week limit.

WHAT ABOUT WOMENS RIGHTS????

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

Oh and one more thing. Its interesting to see the list of senior politicians you published are all men!

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

Editor you have got me rattled now!

"ConservativeHome wishes her every success with her campaign and we are proud that most senior Tories are on her side."

Your statement is making abotion a party political game! It's irrelivent what party someone belongs to!

Keep party politics out of the womb!

[oldschooltory]

This is just another step towards trying to turn the Conservative Party into the Republican Party (UK Branch).

[Jennifer Wells]

"Its interesting to see the list of senior politicians you published are all men!"

But Tiffany: Nadine is a woman!

Are only gay people allowed to have an opinion on gay rights, fathers on fathers' rights, Scots on Scots' rights?

Of course not!

Abortion is a human rights issue of concern to all of us not just women.

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

Jennifer Wells:

But should it become a party political issue?

"ConservativeHome wishes her every success with her campaign and we are proud that most senior Tories are on her side."

This is another authoritarian measure following on from Boris Johnson's ban on alcohol.

What next? Bring back fox hunting?

[Jonathan M. Scott]

Nadine Dorries is right in her campaign; at least she is a true Conservative, unlike the LibDem/ConDem Berk-ow.

The 6 million abortions reminds us that the abortion holocaust is on a similar scale as the murder of the Jews 60 years ago.

I disagree with Andrew Landslide on liberalising early abortions (Why is a frontbencher making this statement? he ought to resign). The 1960s abortion laws were not supposed to be 'on demand' but in extreme cases - it is essentially on demand now.

[James]

But I agree with Tiffany that abortion must remain a free vote, and must remain seperate from Party politics.

It should be irrelevant how many 'Tories', senior or otherwise, vote one way or the other.

The only issue is how many MPs (regardless of Party) vote one way or another.

The last thing we want is a drift towards 'yes this is a free vote, but look how all the shadow cabinet are voting - we'll be watching how you backbenchers vote...'

[Peter Harrison]

Tiffany - I don't think that the statement above makes this a party political issue. It merely states that most senior Conservative MPs agree with this site's views on this subject. But I agree that this must not become a party political issue. It has always been a matter of conscience and it should stay that way.

Women's rights are important but, like any rights, they have to be balanced against the rights of others. In this case, the rights of the unborn foetus are also important.

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden all have a shorter limit than the UK. In most of these countries, the limit is only 12 weeks. Some have provision for abortion after the limit, but generally only if the woman's life is in danger. This is not, in itself, an argument for shortening our limit but it does indicate that shorter limits are workable, despite your concerns.

I will admit to playing devil's advocate here. I do not have a strong personal view on this subject due to the lack of reliable, dispassionate evidence. I lean marginally towards shortening the limit but, if I had to vote on it, there is a good chance that I would end up sitting on my hands.

[Poetry in Motion]

ARGH... the science on this is loony and the arguments emotive and sensasionalist

[torylady]

weird, I just read up A send-up of nadine dorries here

Personally, I dont' think Dorries is one of our best assets. She is one of the least dignified members of parliament (and that's saying somethign) and terrible at putting her case forward without insulting those who disagree with her.

I am not surprised she is leading this campaign. The divisive and highly personal issue of abortion is the sort of area where her superior morality complex flourishes.

[James]

"What next? Bring back fox hunting?" - actually, yes. I believe there is a pledge for an early vote on this.

"I disagree with Andrew Landslide on liberalising early abortions (Why is a frontbencher making this statement? he ought to resign)" Why on earth should he resign for expressing his PERSONAL opinion on what will be a FREE VOTE. That's the point behind free votes - there is no 'Party line'

[Louise Bagshawe]

It's an emotive subject and I'm not going to get drawn into a long debate, so this will be my only post.

But I do want to say that a)of course this must always be a free vote issue and b)by no means do even a majority of women support late abortions.

It is simply nonsense to claim that a 20 week old and later baby is part of your own body. They kick you awake while you're sleeping, they hiccup, the pregnant woman is well aware that the baby is independent of her. If it were part of her own body it wouldn't be such an almighty hassle!

I've never believed in demonising any woman who has an abortion or in slinging mud at pro choicers. They're doing what they believe to be right. But like the first post on the thread suggests, a Guardian poll found large support amomgst women for a reduction in the late abortion limit - and that support rose amongst mothers who'd given birth.

To me social justice is about compassion for the poor, the sick and the vulnerable. I think the best pro-life arguments are not demonstrators abusing women on their way into an abortion clinic, but the pictures in the Daily Mail of babies smiling in utero, hiccuping and sucking their thumbs. As science tells us more about the amazing capabilities of infants in the womb, including the ability to feel pain and react to their parents' voices, the desire for late abortions will vanish.

Women only abort because they believe the unborn baby is not a person, just a potential person. To win the argument, pro-lifers should concentrate on showing them otherwise. Good luck to Nadine and all MPs from all parties standing up for the voiceless on this conscience issue.

[Editor]

I agree that it should remain a free vote issue but Sam and I are simply expressing a ConservativeHome view that a lower abortion limit can't come quickly enough.

[Norm Brainer]

"The 6 million abortions reminds us that the abortion holocaust is on a similar scale as the murder of the Jews 60 years ago."

*speechless*

I'm not even jewish and find that offensive.

I still don't see a reason for the drop in limit? I'm not saying there isn't an argument in favour of reducing it, but being able to survive at that time isn't one.
This seems to be changing policy based on what the pope says rather than reason.

...and isn't bringing back fox hunting the opposite of this - doing that is giving back freedoms as opposed to removing them like the tube booze ban and reducing abortion limit

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

"Bring back fox hunting?"

Yes, David Cameron made it quite clear that the first thing a new Conservative Government will do is to legalise fox hunting again.
Anything else would be a slapp in the face of many of our most staunch supporters.

[passing leftie]

Late abortions are performed rarely and for very, very good reasons. This is the thin end of the wedge, chipping away at women's reproductive rights. The scientific arguments for this change are very week, and the real agenda is almost, without exception, religious. It's simply rationality vs irrationality. Even the religious arguments are weak on their own terms.

The BMA paper on 24-week survial is very clear:
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Abortiontimelimit

And their ethical position paper is also salutory:
http://www.adobe.co.uk/products/acrobat/readstep.html

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

Otherwise I agree with Louise Bagshawe.

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

@Buckinghamshire Tory & Norm Brainer
"...and isn't bringing back fox hunting the opposite of this - doing that is giving back freedoms as opposed to removing them like the tube booze ban and reducing abortion limit"

So there are Pro lifers on here that object to a foetus being torn limb from limb. Yet they think it is ok for a defenceless cuddly fox to be torn limb from limb!

Hypocrisy!

[Richard]

Does anybody else think the hysterical shouting of Miss Dangerfield has "troll" written all over it?

[SophieW]

"So there are Pro lifers on here that object to a foetus being torn limb from limb. Yet they think it is ok for a defenceless cuddly fox to be torn limb from limb!"

Ms Dangerfield, I'm not sure how a fox can be equated as having equal rights to a human as you imply here.
Furthermore I don't believe any person who looks at foxes outside the environment of a child's story-book can consider them 'cuddly.'
Using emotive language like this detracts from the issue we are considering here, i.e. a lowering by 4 weeks of the abortion limit. Only you decided to bring up the subject of fox-hunting. I don't believe it has any relevance to this topic.

[Norm Brainer]

@Tiffany Dangerfield
not sure if you were calling me a pro-lifer or anti-hunter?
I'm pro-hunt and ambiguous on the abortion thing... instict puts me against the bill as I'm generally pro-liberty - I see no reason to change it, but I don't know why it was set at 24 weeks in the 1st place!

I'm sure the religious types will see foetuses above beasts and treat them differently.

[Sean Fear]

"Does anybody else think the hysterical shouting of Miss Dangerfield has "troll" written all over it?"

Undoubtedly.

I too wish Nadine Dorries the best of luck. I suspect she won't succeed this time, but when we win the next election, we should get a reduction through quite easily.

As for Bercow, well, no surprise there.

[Chris Wyremski]

Good Grief Tiffany Dangerfield!

What must it be like to be such a morally illiterate individual? How can you be so empty of humanity as to regard vermin on the same level as an unborn person? I suspect that if people could read this wall post in centuries to come, they would quickly conclude that it was written at a time of great moral confusion in which the forces of good were very weak.

Tiffany, how can you not see the sheer wickedness of what you're saying?

[CJH]

"I too wish Nadine Dorries the best of luck. I suspect she won't succeed this time, but when we win the next election, we should get a reduction through quite easily."

Well Sean, if the Conservative Party wants to turn this into a Party political issue and restrict the right of women to control over their bodies, as you seem to hope by your statement above, then it will lose my support.

[Terry]

Tiffany would presumably be happy if ConHome expressed an opinion she agreed with. You have to come down on one side of the fence or the other (more or less), and I agree with ConHome about the need for a much lower limit. I would personally go for an outright ban and try to divert the saved resources into anything which could make things easier for women who might otherwise have gone for abortions.

[Bishop Hill]

Are't there going to be bigger issues for the next Conservative government than marginal changes to the abortion limit? The issue has every chance of being the party's "fox-hunting issue" - one where they spend months of debate sidelined in an issue which is not high on most people's agendas.

Sort welfare, sort education, sort the bureaucracy, sort defence, sort crime, sort pensions, sort the economy, sort the EU.

Then, and only maybe then, take a look at abortion.

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN AND COMMENTER'S IP ADDRESS BANNED FOR SUSPECTED TROLLING.

[Sean Fear]

"Well Sean, if the Conservative Party wants to turn this into a Party political issue and restrict the right of women to control over their bodies, as you seem to hope by your statement above, then it will lose my support"

Not a party political issue. Merely that the election of a Conservative government will shift Parliament's centre of gravity to the Right, when it comes to free vote issues. If that's unacceptable to you, fair enough.

[Paul]

"If you banned abortion it would lead to a dissproportionate increase in the population of council estates. Is that what you want.

You may find it objectionable BUT IT IS THE TRUTH"

That is an unbelievable comment Tiffany, if you begin to argue from that position, then you are on the path of population control, possibly involving the extermination of those considered unproductive. The comparison to Nazi Germany becomes rather apt.

[North East Tory]

"I would personally go for an outright ban and try to divert the saved resources into anything which could make things easier for women who might otherwise have gone for abortions." Terry.

What absolute rubbish is that?? An outright ban is absurd, in a modern and civilized society, no one, not even MPs should dictate what a woman can and can't do with her own body. A woman, and importantly that also includes females I would consider to be "girls", should NEVER be forced by the state to do something with her body she doesn't want to do, especially something as life changing as having a child. I personally have no issue with the 24 week limit, but I appreciate the argument for lowering it.

I'm also interested in exactly how he would stop the need for abortions by spending money? That suggestion betrays a lack of understanding of the whole topic.

Abortion laws should always be Pro-Choice. All I can say is thank God Terry isn't in Parliament.

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.

[Grammar School Advocate]

On another topic, Editor, did you notice this from Michael Gove yesterday in Hansard?

"In the debate on grammar schools, some people sometimes take the view that intake determines how good a school is, and that if we manipulates that, we fix everything. The view is taken by some on the extreme left and by others who are stuck in the past."

[Hardcore Conservative]

There is no such thing as unconditional “women’s rights” as some have implied. The right of the foetus to live should be balanced against the rights of the mother. That is what was intended when abortion was first permitted legally and this is still the case.

It was never intended to be just a form of contraception for those who could not be bothered to take responsibility for their own actions. It was the safety net to enable woman who had been raped, who were likely to be seriously psychologically or physiologically damaged by giving birth, or who were unlucky enough to be carrying a seriously handicapped foetus, to have the choice to abort their pregnancy in a medically supervised environment.

As it is hard to make an ethical case against abortion, unless we as a society hold that all human life is sacred (and we don’t), then we have a duty to examine our current laws on this subject and determine if they are just and ethical in the light of advancing medical technology.

The bra burning we can do without – it helps nobody.

[Richard]

"What absolute rubbish is that?? An outright ban is absurd, in a modern and civilized society, no one, not even MPs should dictate what a woman can and can't do with her own body."

Tell that to the Irish. A few years ago I saw a map of the world with shading colours based on how strict the abortion laws were. Ireland was red (most restrictive). Countries like Iran were purple (less restrictive).

[Richard]

http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02map.htm

Further to my previous post.

[Stewart]

Abortion is an act of violence which kills an unborn child - I think we all really know this. It is remarkable how many people will tolerate it as part of a wider package of beliefs and stances with a degree of discomfort - especially when confronted with evidence.

Some people mistakenly assume that abortion is the lesser of two evils - and the denial of the obvious in favour of the convenient continues.

Gandhi once commented that "An error does not become truth by reason of its multiple propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it."

[archie wedderspoon]

The conservative party exists to conserve things - and I see very little inclination to do that among those among you who favour abortion. I think a real conservative should be instinctively against abortion in any circumstances.

[CJH]

"It was never intended to be just a form of contraception for those who could not be bothered to take responsibility for their own actions."

Well thank you for spouting your patronising rubbish, Hardcore Conservative. I take the contraceptive pill (something some of the religious anti-abortion whack jobs would also like to see banned) and I use condoms, but I recognise that these are not 100% guaranteed effective. If I accidentally end up pregnant in spite of these precautions, you can be sure I will be having an abortion. I do not want children, I will never have children, and you know what? Opting for the abortion IS taking responsibility for my actions.

[David Gold]

I do agree, abortion should not be a party political issue and I regret Conservative Home's comment about Nadine's campaign. Abortion is a highly emotive issue and one which must remain for individuals to take a view on. The line taken by 'senior Conservatives' should not be an indicator of how more junior MPs should be expected to vote - even when said senior MPs happen to be right.

[MagicAldo]

Editor, you should perhaps also explain to us why the great majority of the Shadow Cabinet voted for the Bill on Second Reading last night. Given some of the elements (animal/human embryos, removal of the need for a father), why was this so? And how do you feel about what Ken Clarke said last night:

"I am a social liberal, who is on the social liberal side of most of the arguments".

"You'll find that the socially liberal majority in the Commons is enormous, entirely in line with the opinion of the citizenship at large".

[Hardcore Conservative]

To CJH.

Good for you and you are right no contraceptives are 100% effective but they almost are for pregnancy prevention. There is doubt over their effectiveness against certain STD’s though.

There are plenty of young woman who do not use contraceptives, because they know if they become pregnant (and many do) the NHS will bail them out with an abortion on demand. This is amoral, irresponsible and selfish behaviour.

If you feel that this is patronising, well tough. It happens to be a fact whether you chose to agree with it or not.

[RK]

"Yes, David Cameron made it quite clear that the first thing a new Conservative Government will do is to legalise fox hunting again. Anything else would be a slapp in the face of many of our most staunch supporters. "

No, DC said that the Party will allow a FREE VOTE on foxhunting - not that we would legalise it.

[Editor]

David Gold: "I do agree, abortion should not be a party political issue and I regret Conservative Home's comment about Nadine's campaign. Abortion is a highly emotive issue and one which must remain for individuals to take a view on. The line taken by 'senior Conservatives' should not be an indicator of how more junior MPs should be expected to vote - even when said senior MPs happen to be right."

Just to repeat: I don't support a whipped vote. ConservativeHome is an independent website, and like any protagonist in the public square it's not unreasonable that we express a view and Sam and I support what Nadine Dorries is proposing.

MagicAldo: What do you want me to say? I'm with the majority of Tory MPs (who voted) on the Embryology Bill - not with the shadow cabinet majority.

[CJH]

"There are plenty of young woman who do not use contraceptives, because they know if they become pregnant (and many do) the NHS will bail them out with an abortion on demand. This is amoral, irresponsible and selfish behaviour."

Because of course the man has no responsbility in this, after all, why should a man be expected to think about contraception? No, it's all down to the "amoral, irresponsible and selfish" women. Never mind that the majority of men I've slept with have tried (unsuccessfully) to persuade me to do it without a condom because, according to them, it feels better. No, it's entirely the woman's fault.

[ACT]

Yeah, you're 'independent' to your tip-toes. From you personally taking lolly from Francis Maude when he was party chairman, to covering up what the 'voice of the grass roots' actually said before the last conference, you're the very dictionary definition of independence. See also: self-righteous; self-satisfied; unconvincing.

[Hardcore Conservative]

To CJH:

I said in my original post:

“It was never intended to be just a form of contraception for those who could not be bothered to take responsibility for their own actions”.

“Those” means men and women, but of course through your anti-male red mist you probably never even considered this could apply to both genders. Men are also quite keen to see abortion as a form of social contraception. I am not making excuses for them either. Why did I say that it is all the womans fault?

Plenty of women feel that abortion is a form of contraception and use it as such with no qualms whatsoever, and in some cases have terminations on a regular basis. This is amoral, irresponsible and selfish. No amount of bra-burning and ranting will change this fact. Nice try all the same.

If you wish to debate with me then kindly read my posts properly.

[Jennifer Wells]

ACT: You are probably the most nasty person who posts here. Please go away.

[Norm Brainer]

"There are plenty of young woman who do not use contraceptives, because they know if they become pregnant (and many do) the NHS will bail them out with an abortion on demand. This is amoral, irresponsible and selfish behaviour."

That's no reason to ban abortions though is it?!
Banning them to reduce the numbers is like putting tape over the warning light!

Plus... it's not easy. I had a friend who had to have one (wasn't mine!) and it still involved many sessions and a few weeks wait - She's not gonna be careless again, that's for sure.
She hadn't realised the pull-out method was ineffective and hadn't realised it was gonna be difficult to abort.
Do they teach anything in schools anymore?!

You can't not teach people about it and then ban abortions when they get too high because they don't know better!

"Abortion is an act of violence which kills an unborn child"
No, it isn't.

@CJH .. totally agree, apart from it's usually the woman who doesn't want the condom!