Nadine Dorries and "The 20 weeks campaign"
The 20 Weeks Campaign was launched yesterday by Nadine Dorries
Nadine Dorries MP will on Tuesday launch the official parliamentary campaign to reduce the upper limit for abortion from 24 weeks to 20 weeks when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is debated in the Commons later this month. Nadine will publish a briefing paper, '20 Reasons for 20 Weeks' outlining the case for cutting the present 24-week limit to 20 weeks. (20 Weeks Campaign)Dr Crippen is in favour of reducing the abortion foetal age limit from 24 to 20 weeks - save only for catastrophic foetal abnormality and genuine threat to the mother’s life. I could not contemplate facilitating an abortion at, say, 23 weeks for purely social reasons.
So why will I not be jumping on the Nadine Dorries bandwagon?
Nadine is a right-wing Conservative, a Christian, a divorcee with three children and, rather implausibly, Iain Dale's theatre going mate. She is an ex-nurse and successful business woman. She is one of the very few MPs who openly publishes details of her parliamentary expenses on her blog and, whatever else you may say about her, you have to admire her for that. I wish she could be as honest about the abortion debate as she is about her expenses.
And there lies the problem. Nadine is against abortion at any age and perfectly entitled so to be. What she is not entitled to do is fiddle the facts. Nadine is so rabidly anti-abortion that, when it comes to discussing abortion, she will not let the truth, including the scientific truth, stand in her way. The Devil, as always, does not mince his words about Nadine. The Ministry of Truth, in The dishonourable member for Bedfordshire provides a detailed analysis of Nadine’s flexible relationship with the truth. Nadine even managed, with the support of one other MP, to get her idiosyncratic views tacked onto a Parliamentary report. The ever excellent Ben Goldacre at Bad Science takes a look:
In the case of this Minority Report on abortion, it’s a rollercoaster ride of pseudoscience and dubious data, signed by one Tory MP with the support of one other, and I highly recommend giving it a read. I’ve posted the PDF here, until it appears on the parliament website. (Ben Goldace : Bad Science)So, along with many doctors, I shall not be out demonstrating on the streets with Nadine Dorries. I shall quietly hope that the age limit is dropped from 24 to 20 weeks but please do not tar me with the same brush as Nadine Dorries. I am not anti-abortion. Far from it. I see it as a lesser of two evils but I believe that a woman’s right to choose is paramount. Up to 20 weeks. After 20 weeks, we should be talking to the mother about adoption, not abortion, and supporting her through the rest of the pregnancy.
There are two things Nadine Dorries could do to reduce the late abortion rate. First of all, revise her ludicrous views on contraception (see Position of the week) and, secondly, start a campaign to ensure that early abortions are more easily and readily available.
I doubt she will do either.
Labels: 20 weeks campaign, abortion, Nadine Dorries, political dishonesty
31 Comments:
John, you are misrepresenting Nadine's position on abortion. She is emphatically not against abortion per se, and has made this clear time and time again.
Yes, I read on numerous websites that she's pro-choice and supports a woman's right to choose.
Yikes! If that's the case. I wonder what she's like on a bad day ;)
I'm not sure what benefit reducing the limit to 24 weeks would actually bring. In my area, the vast majority of abortions are done months before this stage of pregnancy and the few which are done past 20 weeks are, as you suggest, generally cases of foetal abnormality detected late on or where the mother's health is seriously at risk.
ali - I think for some anti-abortionists, it's the easiest one to get at. If you can't do away with abortion for 'social reasons' or force women to look at the ultrasound/sluice/be sterilised afterwards or whatever else, then chip away at abortion laws where it's easiest to start with. No one likes the idea of a late-term abortion, and the women who are getting them are possibly the easiest to demonise. My $0.02.
Iain
OK, well if Nadine is in favour of abortion, I shall make a correction.
l shall do a little research on that - or can you point me to something?
John
Nadine Dorries is not against all abortions (she'd like the limit to be 13 weeks), but:
http://www.badscience.net/?p=634
Hi there Dr Crippen. The Tory MP named in the article, Bob Spink, is now an MP for UKIP.
Michelle
Nearly 200,000 abortions = "the lesser of the two evils", an interesting way of putting it, Dr Crippen.
ali and rooroo - many feel uncomfortable that late abortions are performed especially when a foetus has a mild disability such as club foot or cleft palate.
One termination (on a baby with a cleft palate) was done at 28 weeks - sorry, but this has nothing to do with the spirit of the 1967 Act.
http:www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article429291.ece
A politician (Dorries) telling porky pies - in what way is this news ?
a&e charge nurse,
That's awful. How could two doctors have agreed to that? I know it can make life difficult and can mean a series of operations, two of my relatives have cleft palates, but the thought of an abortion just for this (or similar problems of relative insignificance) at 28 weeks (or any number of weeks for that matter) is nothing less than monstrous.
BTW, I'm not anti-abortion and agree wholeheartedly with Dr Cs point that early abortions should be more easily and readily available. I believe the waiting time in this area is something like 4 weeks. This is plenty of time for the procedure to become more dangerous for the woman and also more expensive to the NHS.
Was that the case highlighted by Joanna Jepson? I don't want to go off topic with it, but I'm not going to judge the woman for it, without knowing her or her reasons.
jane_t: when I worked for one of the private abortion providers, one of the PCTs waiting times was 8 weeks - just for the initial appointment and not the termination itself :(
Was that the case highlighted by Joanna Jepson? I don't want to go off topic with it, but I'm not going to judge the woman for it, without knowing her or her reasons.
Good point. There may have been other circumstances that haven't been reported.
jane_t: when I worked for one of the private abortion providers, one of the PCTs waiting times was 8 weeks - just for the initial appointment and not the termination itself :(
Incredible. If the main reason it's being considered is for the mental health of the mother, what must she be going through during those weeks?
It's cases like those mentioned by "a&e charge nurse" that need to be stopped, but the liberal interpretation of the Act of Parliament allows these tragedies to happen. The cleft palate case was highlighted by Rev Joanna Jepson a one-time curate at an Anglican church in Chester. I'm more concerned about abortion for reasons like cleft palate, club foot etc than the issue of time limits.
"Was that the case highlighted by Joanna Jepson? I don't want to go off topic with it, but I'm not going to judge the woman for it, without knowing her or her reasons."
Good point. There may have been other circumstances that haven't been reported.
I should have added there that, yes, I agree it would be wrong to judge this particular woman without more information, but in principle I'm very much against abortions at any gestational age for minor deformities like this.
A lying politician. Woo. Why, that's exciting and so completely unexpected in our virtuous days.
I don't understand why it is that supposedly moral religious people feel the need to lie in order to trick others into a moral stance. It's almost as if they've figured out that their egos are their only deities, or something...
Hi, jane_t - I don't know if it's the law of unintended consequences, or what, but I think we have slightly lost our way somewhere along the line.
When David Steele introduced the act it was rightly seen as a humane solution to the awful situation that too many women (and their partners) found themselves in - although I remember Dr Crippen mentioning (as a young law student) that the act itself was tantamount to abortion on demand - and so it has proved.
Incidentally, a review of the evidence on late abortions is provided by the pro-Choice Forum - it can be found here:
http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/pdf/PCF_late_abortion08.pdf
p.s. fascinating discussion on the homebirth thread, spoilt only by some rather abusive posters who seemed to be repeatedly accusing you of stuff you didn't actually say, bizarre ?
A&ECN,
Is the lesser of two evils abortion or 200,000 unwanted children?
Freakenomics has a greatchapter on the introduction of abortion across america and the reduction of crime about 18 years later.
It is worth a read.
I do wonder what life many of those aborted would have had. I don't see a significant reduction in children available to be adopted so its not like they would all be placed into a loving secure environment.
Just another point to think about in the debate.
Yes, it's the case Joanna Jepson took up. The termination took place in 2001 and we can reasonably infer it was highly unusual (I share the concern expressed here).
the a&e charge nurse said...
Thanks for the link, I'll take a look.
"p.s. fascinating discussion on the homebirth thread, spoilt only by some rather abusive posters who seemed to be repeatedly accusing you of stuff you didn't actually say, bizarre ?"
Thanks also for this. I was beginning to doubt my own sanity there for a while!
Funny pseudonym said:
"I don't see a significant reduction in children available to be adopted..."
Do you mean the number of children available for adoption hasn't decreased much since abortions became legal?
I think Iain Dale must have been at the wacky baccy if he expects anyone to believe Mad Nad is "pro-choice" in any meaningful sense of the phrase.
Interested in the comment about religious anti-abortion folk like Nadine D being prepared to lie, cheat, deceive etc etc. to try and achieve their ends of restricting abortion. This "ends justify the means" position has been abundantly apparent in the anti-abortion campaigns in the US, where they have also added being prepared to intimidate, injure and even kill... And all in the name of religion and the rights of the unborn. It would be more believable if they cared about the same children after they were born.
Of course, it is also possible that Dorries simply does not understand what is evidence, or a fact. She certainly seems to have an elastic view of reality.
While reducing the limit for terminations to 20 weeks can be defended, I suspect it would mean putting a lot of money into speeding up, extending and improving prenatal diagnosis, as well as access to termination, if alte abortions are to be avoided. Mrs PhD and I had a foetal abnormality scare which was not apparent / spotted on an amniocentesis scan but was picked up on an anomaly scan at 19 weeks. Had it really turned out to be something nasty any termination would obviously have had to be done post 20 wks.
"While reducing the limit for terminations to 20 weeks can be defended, I suspect it would mean putting a lot of money into speeding up, extending and improving prenatal diagnosis, as well as access to termination, if alte abortions are to be avoided.
After reading the link left by 'the a&e charge nurse', I have doubts that a change in the limit is practical. Desirable, but probably not practical, for the reasons you give and others.
"While reducing the limit for terminations to 20 weeks can be defended, I suspect it would mean putting a lot of money into speeding up, extending and improving prenatal diagnosis, as well as access to termination, if alte abortions are to be avoided. Mrs PhD and I had a foetal abnormality scare which was not apparent / spotted on an amniocentesis scan but was picked up on an anomaly scan at 19 weeks. Had it really turned out to be something nasty any termination would obviously have had to be done post 20 wks."
As I understand terminations for foetal abnormalities would still be allowed after 20 weeks. Even now they are allowed beyond 24 weeks. It would just be the ones carried out under the "for the mental health of the mother/other children" clauses.
Late term terminations of healthy foetuses are very disturbing for all involved. In terms of health care providers this means especially the theatre staff, this is one of the the main reasons that our Ob/Gyn's don't carry out terminations after 18 weeks and refer them on.
Hospital wallpaper
Agreed that the sort of late termination I hypothesised would still be allowed under the proposed rules as an exemption. I meant it more as a general example that the current system currently takes too long over pre-natal diagnosis. If one really wants to address later terminations (for whatever reason) that needs addressing.
I think it is highly unlikely that women who currently terminate healthy pregnancies for "social reasons" are going to be persuaded to carry them to term if the limit gets reduced to 20 wks. There would just be a tremendous presssure to do terminations in wk 18-19. And if a woman couldn't get one due to resourcing and was then refused post-20 wks I suspect it would inevitably all end up in the law courts. I also have visions of health authorities having to fly pregnant women off to other countries with different laws.
"I also have visions of health authorities having to fly pregnant women off to other countries with different laws."
Yes, I think it's called 'abortion tourism' and many people travel to the UK for this very reason. Certainly people that could afford this for themselves are likely to take this option, and if they feel strongly enough about it to go to these lengths, I can't help thinking that this is quite a good indication that continuing with their pregnancy would be bad for their mental health.
Just found this, http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/grace_davies/crossing_borders_abortion_journeys
On another tack, how many of these abortions do people think are being used as contraception? Not necessarily in a thought out way (I won't bother with contraception, I'll just get an abortion), but maybe, in the back of their mind, they think abortion will be easier to obtain and easier to do than it really is. How many people really think about what's involved in abortions before they find themselves pregnant?
Just to clarify – I covered this story in 2001 – Joanna Jepson was herself born with a jaw deformity, which is why she is such a passionate advocate of it not being ‘a serious handicap’ as defined by the 1967 Abortion Act.
Ms Jepson, being personally attractive and able to speak lucidly, was a godsend to the media and got plenty of coverage to present her case, which was, in effect, to have abortion for the reasons of cleft palate declared an ‘unlawful killing’.
However, her complaint was not upheld as the CPS decided the doctors involved had acted in good faith.
OK, so the legal "quacktitioners" at the CPS (much despised by Dr C) didn't uphold Rev Jepson's complaint, but the fact remains that a late abortion of a fetus with a minor defect at 28 weeks is nothing short of legalised murder.
The fact that Rev Jepson is now physically attractive and able to express her views lucidly proves the point. She could well have become the victim of a late abortion. Whether the doctors were solely responsible for the decision to abort the cleft palte baby is questionable. Shouldn't the parents be held to account?
Jane_t - On another tack, how many of these abortions do people think are being used as contraception? Not necessarily in a thought out way (I won't bother with contraception, I'll just get an abortion), but maybe, in the back of their mind, they think abortion will be easier to obtain and easier to do than it really is. How many people really think about what's involved in abortions before they find themselves pregnant?
Oh my God. You really are an idiot aren't you?
Let me sum it up. NO WOMAN WANTS AN ABORTION. SOME WOMEN HAVE TO HAVE THEM. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY PLANNED OR WANTED THEM.
You're a mad woman. Abortions aren't boob jobs, or diamond tiaras. They're not planned in advance, or saved up for. They are a medical procedure to terminate an embryo or foetus that is unwanted. Unwanted because it wass not planned. Unwanted due to contraceptive failure. Unwanted because it's severely disabled and would destroy an existing family or have no quality of life. Unwanted because the woman will be killed by a partner family member.
If you honestly think young women are shagging about, and thinking "Oh well this'll probably get me pregnant, but hey, abortion's easy enough!" then you are insane.
aphrodite's ak47, do you have to try hard to misunderstand everything I write? I said that I didn't think they consciously planned to use abortion as contraception. When there is roughly 1 abortion to every 4 live births in this country, it seems reasonable to look for other reasons than the ones you suggest. I hope contraception failure rates aren't that high, abortions for disabilities are a tiny proportion of total abortions and there can't be that many carried out because the woman fear being killed by a partner or family member!
A friend of my son's girlfriend has had two abortions in the last year. If this was down to contraceptive failure they must be very unlucky. I suspect a major cause of unintended pregnancy is probably alcohol.
A quick search will show that I'm not the only one to consider this possibility either.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567127/Abortion-'being-used-as-contraception'.html
"Abortion 'being used as contraception'
Abortions are being used as a form of contraception, according to Lord Steel, the architect of the current laws on terminations..."
On the other hand, this writer claims that fewer abortions were carried out after the abortion law than before it because of rising use of contraception. It this is accurate, it suggests that, at least in the 60's, abortion was not used instead of contraception.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-contraception-and-abortion-398040.html
This writer also states:
"The good-news statistic is that 90 per cent of legal abortions are now done the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. I have done abortions. I also have a PhD in embryology and I know what I destroy when I do an abortion. I would rather see five abortions at six weeks of pregnancy than one at 16 weeks."
Which reinforces for me the need to reduce waiting times for abortions and improve diagnosis of problems.
The alcohol-leads-to-unintended-pregnancy suggestion also shows us why it is important to: (i) keep pushing sex education in school (whatever some parents say) and via adverts (ii) have more condom machines in bars and other public spaces; and (ii) publicize the morning-after pill and make it as easily accessible as possible. Since the pill acts to prevent ovulation/implantation it isn't "abortion" in any meaningful sense that most people would recognise.
The most sensible root-and-branch approach to reducing abortions, including late ones, is surely to try and avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Meanwhile, I see "Mad Nad" Dorries has revealed her true colours by deciding that actual numbers (on survival in births before 24 wks) are not actual numbers if she says they're not (see e.g. here where her comments from her blog on the BMJ study published this wk are reprinted).
PS If anyone non-medical or scientific reading this wants some sensible info on the scientific evidence influencing the setting of the 24-wk limit, the BMA has a helpful webpage here
Well yes, it seems so obvious that sex education and easily available contraception is a 'good idea' as a method of reducing unwanted pregnancies that it hardly seems worth mentioning. But you are of course right to make the point as people like Dorries don't appear to agree. http://www.epolitix.com/EN/Blog/200802/fc7b5a2f-c47f-48ba-ac6d-a1820eff90c9.htm
She fails to make clear exactly how she thinks publicising the morning-after pill will increase abortion rates. There are some interesting replies below her post.
Maybe more emphasis on injected contraceptives would help with the alcohol problem, though maybe the side effects put people off. I don't think I'd like taking something that could cause side effects that last 3 months. At least we can stop taking the pill if we don't like them.
Thanks for the links.
Thinking again about injected contraceptives, they would also be a bad idea because it doesn't protect for STDs.
This is the latest and hottest ghd styler ever. If you need a ghd hair straighteners, this is a must buyghd hair straighteners,cheap ghd hair straighteners,pink ghd hair straightenersghd straightenersComme vous pouvez le voir, il s'agit d'une paire de chaussures shox classiquepink ghd hair straighteners . Si vous souhaitez poursuivre la mode, nike shox NZ sont votre meilleu…"Cette paire de Nike Shox Torch est chaud en maintenant la demande.nike chaussurestn chaussures
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home