The debate around a woman's right to choose on abortion is often thought of as mainly about term limits. It's easy to forget that there are many more obstacles which can be put in the way of women seeking to end an unwanted pregnancy. Needless to say there is no shortage of those in our society who will clutch at any straw to deny women the right to autonomy over our own bodies.
One such individual is Tory MP Nadine Dorries who has chosen the UK government's summer recess as the right time to try and sneak through her latest proposals mandating that women be offered "independent" counseling before being referred for termination.
Let me start by explaining that when she says "independent", she means "independent from the medical profession". A recent exposé in The Guardian showed that outright lies about risks of cancer, infertility and mental health problems are commonplace among organisations that claim to offer this service. Women can also expect deliberately gruesome and inaccurate descriptions of the process of termination itself and the use of emotive language - the foetus referred to as a baby and talk of heartbeats, grandchildren and babyclothes. No mention is made of post-natal depression or the difficulties of single motherhood. That's not what I would call "independent". And remember in the middle of a recession Dorries' proposal would force the NHS to hand over vitally-needed funds to pay for this "service".
The MP and her supporters claim this is necessary because if such advice is given by abortion providers, they will attempt to "sell" abortion at any cost. She seems to have overlooked two key points: that only one in six calls to Marie Stopes helpline leads to an abortion being performed at a Marie Stopes clinic and that Marie Stopes and other abortion providers are charities, run on a not-for-profit basis.
A woman's right to access an abortion is compromised twice by this move. Firstly in the way that abortion is framed. What does it say to women seeking abortion if they are ordered to be offered counseling? It sends a message that women's own judgement on the matter is not to be trusted, that women cannot be relied upon to know their own minds and make their own decisions, they must be "helped". Having GPs and professional health organisations refer women to these unscrupulous "counseling" advisors serves to legitimise the lies they spread. If the government is paying for me to be told this - surely it must be true?
Anyone seeking medical treatment has the right to seek for themselves any support they want: GPs and service providers will always highlight risks as well as benefits. These "counseling" organisations have existed for decades and women who wish to visit them are able to do so - without even being given a disclaimer about the biased nature of the service they offer. There is no evidence anywhere to suggest counseling can be of any use to those who don't actively want it.
Secondly it poses a practical obstacle. An extra layer of referral. The move would prevent GPs and organisations like Marie Stopes from providing accurate and fair information about the process of termination. Instead women would be expected to wait possibly several weeks for their "counseling". There is no incentive for providers to operate in a timely way and even a rapid referral would mean another day off work and another set of travel expenses.
Abortion is safest carried out as early as possible into a pregnancy. The longer the delay caused, the greater the risk to a woman's health and some women could be delayed so long that abortion is no longer an option for them under UK law.
Finally let us not forget the group of women most seriously affected by any move that makes abortion harder to access: women in abusive families and relationships, women trapped in the sex industry and women from religious communities where evidence of extra-marital sex can be linked to "honour"-violence. When we put another obstacle in the way of abortion access we know we are putting women's lives at risk.
Nadine Dorries claims, on the basis of what evidence we do not know, that her move will prevent 60,000 abortions per year. But isn't "preventing an abortion" just the same thing as "forcing an unwilling woman to continue with a pregnancy"? Women know their own minds, they are welcome to seek whatever support they so desire in making decisions about their bodies. It is not the job of the government or the NHS to tell women what counseling they need and it certainly shouldn't be their job to push women towards organisations known for false and distorted information.
Follow Kate Smurthwaite on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Cruella1
Joshua North: Reforms Will Bring US-Style Healthcare to Britain
Any psychological assistance in the form of spiritual or social guidance should be entirely up to her. Unless it can be verified by totally independant minds that she is incapable of making informed choices on the matter. There is a certain arrogance I feel that inspires such interference here. I believe that it betrays something far deeper and also vitally important politically. It's why I have always argued that people who bring their religious beliefs (since it is those people who are the most vocal on this subject it seems to me) into the social arena are in fact politicking and are open to be challenged.
I don`t know whether this woman is deranged or just plain nasty, but the sooner she is out of politics the better.
Do they also know that the vote, which some laid down their life for, does not confer a right to influence policy? It merely constitutes the right to attempt to select someone who will allow themselves to be instructed as to policy by governments quite possibly in an non-majority mandated position of power. Hope that’s clear now.
I agree. Just to clarify, does the 'false and distorted information' in any way resemble the information Dories gave regarding her expenses claims, for which she was investigated by John Lyon, the parliamentary commissioner for standards in January 2010?
Or perhaps it resembles her admission that: "My blog is 70% fiction and 30% fact. It is written as a tool to enable my constituents to know me better and to reassure them of my commitment to Mid Bedfordshire. I rely heavily on poetic licence and frequently replace one place name/event/fact with another".
Not really encouraging when someone accused of fiddling expenses also admits on their blog to being happy to mix facts around as if the truth operates under some kind of pick'n'mix setup.
She then says she wants to reduce the term limit to 20 weeks due to myths about viability but forgets that when she had the chance she also voted to reduce the limit as low as 12 weeks. Really she should just be honest and say she's anti-choice.
cause the article is about great britain
It is also not their job to tell us whether to eat trans-fats, or what to smoke or how many units of alcohol to drink. Doesn't stop them from doing it. Do-gooders can always come up with a rationalization for government acting as if they are smarter than those who elect them. If you do not oppose ALL of this, eventually they come around to telling you to do something that you don't like. Then your position is weak: where were you when they were telling others to do things that they didn't like being told about.
The suggestion that abortion providers have a financial interest in carrying out as many abortions as possible is ludicrous - as you say, most abortion providers are charities, and it's not as though the Tories are against private healthcare on principle anyway!
We know that Dorries' agenda is to reduce womens' access to abortion as far as she can - this is just the first stupid amendment she's managed to push this far.
As far as I'm concerned, 'reducing the number of abortions' is only a good thing if fewer women want abortions! If all we're doing is forcing more women to endure pregnancies they don't want, that is a sick and cruel way of addressing the issue. More sex ed, anyone?
This is known in America as ignorance education as they push it as the only form of sex ed
Yet she wont be because she is a true believer and think she knows better than everyone else.