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.
No comments:
Post a Comment