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.
No comments:
Post a Comment