Tomorrow, Parliament will vote on the amendments proposed by Nadine Dorries, which would take responsibility for abortion counselling away from those organisations who carry out the procedure. I think this is a very bad idea. Hideously bad. I think Nadine Dorries is guilty of trying to push through changes to the availability of abortion via the back door, and I have written to my MP, Willie Bain, and asked him to oppose the changes if the amendment comes to a vote. (He has assured me he will).
I come to the debate from the following standpoint: I cannot imagine a situation where I would find myself pregnant and not want to continue with that pregnancy. I am a committed Christian, and I believe in God. I am a liberal. My right to believe in God is not affected by someone else not believing in him. I do not wish to force other people to believe, I do not feel I have the right to judge other people's spirituality.
The debate surrounding these amendments has become heated and, in some cases, rather ugly. I have a real dislike of people who resort to calling people names. Dr Evan Harris has been dubbed "Dr Death" this week by Dorries (and other pro-life supporters). Throughout the debate, when I've found pro-lifers spitting bile and froth across twitter, I find myself questioning what their motives are. If the pro-life movement is truly one of love and concern, why would so many spend so much time being cruel? I realise there are bad guys on both sides - but for some reason it always shocked me more when I hear someone who calls themselves a Christian being cruel and spiteful. Perhaps I'm just naive. I do know that there are several reasons I think these amendments are a bad idea, and I've detailed the main ones below.
They legislate for something which already exists.
Under current rules, abortion providers must offer counselling services to those who approach them with a view to having an abortion. However, many other agencies (including LIFE, who have been touted as a possible provider of counselling under the amendments) offer counselling to women who find themselves facing a "crisis" pregnancy. There is NOTHING preventing women accessing advice and help from anyone. Therefore, this legislation is not required. Worse still, by tacking these amendments onto a bill when they are not needed, Dorries et al are politicising a debate which involves issues which should not concern politicians (namely, the choice a woman has over whom to seek advice from). Government should be involved in the legal standpoint of the procedure - not the morality of it.
The Morality of Life
There is no consensus on when an embryo becomes a life in scientific fact. What we do know, however, is that the overwhelming majority of abortions take place before 13 weeks gestation. At that stage, an embryo cannot exist outside of it's mother's body. The impact on the existence of the embryo affects the mother almost exclusively. An embryo cannot possibly be seen as anything other than a potential human, in scientific fact. It is entirely possible to recognise the loss of a potenial life, through abortion, whilst still accepting that we have to make a moral choice. By being against abortion, one must also accept that forcing a woman to continue with a pregnancy will change her life forever, and not necessarily for the better. Anti-abortion is anti-woman. The law cannot deal with partial people - it must legislate to protect the individual who already exists IN LAW. In this case, the woman herself. Harsh though that may sound, it's the only logical conclusion. We cannot enter a situation where law exist to protect potential people, to the detriment of an actual person.
Motherhood Isn't Always a Choice
No contraception available in the world today is 100% effective, apart from abstention. It's unrealistic to expect a woman in a loving relationship to abstain from having sex on the off-chance she may conceive. When considering her options, a woman (and her partner) are not only thinking whether to continue with a pregnancy. They are thinking about the wider impact it will have on their lives, and the lives of those around them. Abortion is not always about feckless women unable to take responsibility for their own actions. Contrast this situation with that of errant fathers, who always have the ability to abandon a family with very little comeback. Even the CSA, which promised to solve this issue, tends to concentrate its efforts on those fathers who are easy to trace (i.e. those who had no intention of shirking their responsibility).
Abortion Legislation Via The Back Door
The Health Bill which these amendments are attached to are nothing to do with abortion. The last attempt to reform abortion legislation in the UK failed. By attempting to attach an amendment regarding the abortion procedure, I can only conclude that Dorries is playing her pro-life game by stealth. If she wishes to change the existing abortion legislation, it should be done in it's own right. The 1967 Abortion Act (in addition to the amendments made to the time limit via The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act) safeguards the right to a safe, free abortion in certain circumstances. Any change to that procedure, however small or insignificant, should be done properly with a significant amount of medical research, scientific backing, and properly allocated discussion time in the House. Not through a last minute line tacked on to another bill concerned with the Health Service as a whole.
The Reasons for Abortion
Since they came to power, the Tory/Liberal Government have made a series of cuts to the support available to single mothers in the UK. In addition to this, the drive towards holding the idea of a Nuclear Family as the cornerstone of society, has further demonised women who find themselves, for whatever reason, outside of this "ideal". New statistics released in the past 7 days have highlighted the pay gap between men and women, with many holding motherhood, and the resultant career breaks, as the reason. If Dorries really wants to reduce the number of abortions, then perhaps she would be better taking her own party to task for making it harder for women to make the choice to become mothers. Of course, the reality is that legislation which brought with it harsh penalties for employers discriminating against women of child bearing age, or which forced them to treat women with children the same as men with children, would be unpopular amongst the Tory voters (and more importantly, their funders). It's much easier to blame the women for not conforming to the roles ascribed to them, than it is to force the dinosaurs to increase the options. Whilst women must choose between an unlimited career and raising children, then abortion will always be a choice some women will arrive at, purely through circumstance.
Conflict of Interest - Or in the Interest of the Patient?
Nadine's main concern - that organisations such as BPAS and Marie Stopes cannot possibly offer unbiased advice, because of the financial incentive - shows a remarkably blinkered view of how practical charities work. No one accuses charities which help drug addicts beat their addiction, with Government funding, of failing to treat them properly because a cured addict would cut their funding allocation. If I am having a medical procedure, I would appreciate the chance to discuss that procedure with professionals who will be involved in the operation. I would not expect to be referred from pillar to post by my already overworked GP - possibly to a counsellor who doesn't think the operation is the right choice for me at all, based on their own opinions, and not my situation. I don't want the first time I see the inside of a clinic to be when I arrive there on the day. As I said above, additional counselling is available to all. It's a short google search away. The idea that women are unable to make reasonable decisions without some religious zealot pointing out to them that the bundle of cells they are carrying will one day become "a bay-bee", is borderline offensive. We are not stupid. We do not need patronising. When I need advice on a subject, I will seek it from people I trust and respect - not someone my GP is required to recommend. Also, it's my belief that in a situation like an unexpected pregnancy, most women know instinctively what their course of action would be. Any counselling they seek will likely be an attempt to back up what they already know. So Dorries attempt at getting charities like Life on the government payroll, will not work. They will only help the woman who would have sought them out anyway.
There is Nothing to Suggest the Amendment is Needed.
Dorries and her supporters constantly question the motives of BPAS and Marie Stopes. But there is no evidence to suggest that the counselling they offer is not working. The amendment would ban them from offering abortion advice. But for anyone else, it would be a free-for-all. There has been no research, nor investigations, carried out into the services offered by abortion providers. There is no evidence at all, in fact, that abortion providers are guilty of not offering an unbiased view on the abortion procedure. Except for the anecdotes trotted out by the pro-life lobby - none of which are provable. Are we really happy for legislation to be introduced in the UK, on the basis that someone "thinks" there might be a problem?
So to conclude - I think you can tell I think it's a bad idea. I think it's disingenuous, and I don't think it's motivated by a real concern for women. I can easily put myself in the position of a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy, I would want her to be given all the help and support available to her, whatever her choice of outcome might be. But given the pointlessness of this amendment, my only conclusion is that this is Nadine's attempt at forcing in a thin end of a very dangerous wedge. And the ugliness of debate surrounding the issue has only proved to me that there are an awful lot of people out there who are unhappy with women being able to make up their own minds about their own lives. That alone should set alarm bells ringing.
Tuesday 6 September 2011
Wednesday 13 July 2011
Dorries is looking under the wrong stone for an abortion scapegoat.
Nadine Dorries has a response piece published at Comment is Free in the Guardian today. It's a response to an article about her by Suzanne Moore. There's no love lost between the two, and I always find it a shame when people can't keep personal opinion on someone out of their writings on a subject.
Although I'd shied away from commenting on these things for a while, reading Dorries poor attempts at swathing her opinions in folds of concern for women got under my skin. Not because I'm pro-choice, but because I'm tired of reading her vain attempts at trying to justify and sanitise her opinions on abortion - dressing them up as an attempt to improve choice available, by trying to hit family planning clinics where she thinks it will hurt. Part of me thinks "Go ahead" - if only to disprove her feeling that clinics run by organisations such as Marie Stopes and BPAS are out to make as much money as possible. It's an interesting argument. But in order to make it stick, you need to provide proof that these organisations (which are non-profit making) are only interested in making money out of their NHS contracts, and that they deliberately tailor their counselling services to lead women towards having an abortion.
Let's give Nadine the benefit of the doubt. I agree that counselling should always be offered to women who are considering abortion - the choice is theirs whether they take it up or not. There may be some truth that the health service is at risk of conflict of interests. But in her article on Ministry of Truth, Unity points out that this is something which occurs every day in healthcare. Are we wary that the pharmacist is making a profit when they sell us hayfever tablets over the counter? And does this lead us to conclude that we cannot place any trust in a non-profit organisation, with years of experience, to do what is best for an individual ahead of their own profits? It's quite an accusation to make, when you think about it.
The other concern I have is that farming counselling out to another organisation(s) adds another layer of contact into the process of enquiring about and obtaining an abortion. After 9 weeks, the procedure for a medical abortion changes, and become more involved. If a woman has become pregnant due to contraceptive failure (especially if she has been taking The Pill) it can take several weeks for her to make the discovery that she is pregnant. An in-house counselling service reduces the amount of cross agency communication required, which could conceivably hold up access to an abortion, and thus limit the choice available. If there is any question about the impartiality of BPAS and Marie Stopes, surely it would be better to investigate and/or regulate the service they offer? I've no doubt that an organisation like LIFE is run with the best intentions, and I am certain there are a lot of women (and men) who have been helped and supported into the right decision through their services. But surely, given that they are obviously a pro-life organisation, there is a conflict of interests for them too? If an abortion could only be carried out once the go-ahead has been given by the independent counsellor, and that counsellor worked for LIFE.... can you see a problem with that? I certainly can. But then that too is an unfair accusation - the question is can a pro-life organisation put its ideals and objectives to one side, to give unbiased support to women?
The main issue I have with Dorries, is that she is focusing on the wrong targets if she truly wants to reduce the number of abortions in this country. Being able to continue with pregnancy often comes down to more than just a willingness to be a mother. It's about having the ability to do that in your current circumstances, and to be in the position to be able to make an informed choice about your long term future and prospects. Dorries is part of a government which has introduced cuts to funding which disproportionately affect the poorest women in society, and so she is part of the problem which is consistently narrowing the choices available. If she were to focus on introducing legislation which would improve equality by imposing harsh punishment on employers who discriminate against women, and mothers, then we wouldn't have to choose between children and a career. If she were to focus on making the CSA more effective, or to improve benefits available to those who find themselves bringing up children alone, women wouldn't have to worry about shouldering the financial responsibility of child-rearing alone without the support of husband or state. If she were to improve access to education for teenage mothers, they wouldn't have to give up their futures to raise a baby. If she were to make childcare more affordable, couples who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant, wouldn't have to choose between financial stability and the quality of life of their existing children, and having another baby.
But by trying to push through a purely anti-abortion agenda, in the underhand fashion of pretending to be improving choices (choices which already exist in the current system), Dorries is muddying the waters of abortion legislation, and removing the control a woman has over her own life and her own body. In my opinion, this will achieve nothing more than condemning women who find themselves in an impossible situation. For most women, the choice on offer is not to kill or not to kill, its to have an abortion or give birth to and be responsible for another person for the rest of your life. And given the options available to women in society at the moment, for some the decision to abort will always be the right one, whether they are happy with that situation or not.
Although I'd shied away from commenting on these things for a while, reading Dorries poor attempts at swathing her opinions in folds of concern for women got under my skin. Not because I'm pro-choice, but because I'm tired of reading her vain attempts at trying to justify and sanitise her opinions on abortion - dressing them up as an attempt to improve choice available, by trying to hit family planning clinics where she thinks it will hurt. Part of me thinks "Go ahead" - if only to disprove her feeling that clinics run by organisations such as Marie Stopes and BPAS are out to make as much money as possible. It's an interesting argument. But in order to make it stick, you need to provide proof that these organisations (which are non-profit making) are only interested in making money out of their NHS contracts, and that they deliberately tailor their counselling services to lead women towards having an abortion.
Let's give Nadine the benefit of the doubt. I agree that counselling should always be offered to women who are considering abortion - the choice is theirs whether they take it up or not. There may be some truth that the health service is at risk of conflict of interests. But in her article on Ministry of Truth, Unity points out that this is something which occurs every day in healthcare. Are we wary that the pharmacist is making a profit when they sell us hayfever tablets over the counter? And does this lead us to conclude that we cannot place any trust in a non-profit organisation, with years of experience, to do what is best for an individual ahead of their own profits? It's quite an accusation to make, when you think about it.
The other concern I have is that farming counselling out to another organisation(s) adds another layer of contact into the process of enquiring about and obtaining an abortion. After 9 weeks, the procedure for a medical abortion changes, and become more involved. If a woman has become pregnant due to contraceptive failure (especially if she has been taking The Pill) it can take several weeks for her to make the discovery that she is pregnant. An in-house counselling service reduces the amount of cross agency communication required, which could conceivably hold up access to an abortion, and thus limit the choice available. If there is any question about the impartiality of BPAS and Marie Stopes, surely it would be better to investigate and/or regulate the service they offer? I've no doubt that an organisation like LIFE is run with the best intentions, and I am certain there are a lot of women (and men) who have been helped and supported into the right decision through their services. But surely, given that they are obviously a pro-life organisation, there is a conflict of interests for them too? If an abortion could only be carried out once the go-ahead has been given by the independent counsellor, and that counsellor worked for LIFE.... can you see a problem with that? I certainly can. But then that too is an unfair accusation - the question is can a pro-life organisation put its ideals and objectives to one side, to give unbiased support to women?
The main issue I have with Dorries, is that she is focusing on the wrong targets if she truly wants to reduce the number of abortions in this country. Being able to continue with pregnancy often comes down to more than just a willingness to be a mother. It's about having the ability to do that in your current circumstances, and to be in the position to be able to make an informed choice about your long term future and prospects. Dorries is part of a government which has introduced cuts to funding which disproportionately affect the poorest women in society, and so she is part of the problem which is consistently narrowing the choices available. If she were to focus on introducing legislation which would improve equality by imposing harsh punishment on employers who discriminate against women, and mothers, then we wouldn't have to choose between children and a career. If she were to focus on making the CSA more effective, or to improve benefits available to those who find themselves bringing up children alone, women wouldn't have to worry about shouldering the financial responsibility of child-rearing alone without the support of husband or state. If she were to improve access to education for teenage mothers, they wouldn't have to give up their futures to raise a baby. If she were to make childcare more affordable, couples who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant, wouldn't have to choose between financial stability and the quality of life of their existing children, and having another baby.
But by trying to push through a purely anti-abortion agenda, in the underhand fashion of pretending to be improving choices (choices which already exist in the current system), Dorries is muddying the waters of abortion legislation, and removing the control a woman has over her own life and her own body. In my opinion, this will achieve nothing more than condemning women who find themselves in an impossible situation. For most women, the choice on offer is not to kill or not to kill, its to have an abortion or give birth to and be responsible for another person for the rest of your life. And given the options available to women in society at the moment, for some the decision to abort will always be the right one, whether they are happy with that situation or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)