The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

Cameron U-turns on abortion counselling

MPs will now be advised to vote against Nadine Dorries and Frank Field's amendment on "independent"

When in doubt, U-turn. Having indicated at the start of the week that it would support Nadine Dorries and Frank Field's proposal to introduce "independent" counselling for women seeking an abortion, the government has now reversed course and will advise coalition MPs to vote against the amendment if it is put to a vote next week. The Department of Health, which previously said that new "independent" counselling, was a certainty, will continue to consult on the matter.

No.10's move reflects the fact that almost all of Dorries and Field's claims have collapsed under scrutiny. The amendment argues that medics and charities such as the British Pregnancy Advisory Service [BPAS] and Marie Stopes should be stripped of their exclusive responsibility for counselling on the basis that they have a financial interest in advising women to have abortions. Dorries claimed for instance, that both are "paid millions by the NHS to carry out terminations - and so profit from the process".

Yet both the BPAS and Marie Stopes are not-for-profit registered charities that have no financial stake in encouraging abortions. As the BPAS states: "Any small surplus that we make is ploughed back into providing services." Moreover, as Marie Stopes points out, 20-25 per cent of women that speak to one of their counsellers choose to continue with their pregnancy. There is no evidence for Dorries's claim that "the abortion system and process is abusing women".

It is also clear that Dorries's primary motive is not to ensure that women receive better advice but to reduce the number of terminations. Contrary to what supporters of the amendment claim, there is nothing in the text to prevent religious organisations becoming involved in abortion counselling. The amendment states that "information, advice and counselling is independent where it is provided by either -- (i)a private body that does not itself provide for the termination of pregnancies; or (ii) a statutory body." There is no prohibition against groups with a distinct moral agenda.

It is no surprise, therefore, that a number of Tory MPs have come out against the amendment. One of the party's MPs told the FT earlier this week:

The majority of women looking for an abortion are already clear that is what they want when they approach a clinic. We have to be careful not to go down the US-type model of allowing politicians who have a very different agenda to press their case.

This [debate] is about an individual who brought an amendment, whose agenda is to reduce abortions dressing it up as counselling. It is disingenuous.

That it took the government so long to realise this is further evidence of Cameron's lack of attention to detail and again prompts the question: what does he really think?

5 comments

David Lindsay's picture

Cameron is truly the heir to Thatcher's legalisation of abortion up to birth, which was opposed by John Smith.

David's picture

"Almost all of Dorries and Field's claims have collapsed under scrutiny."

This scrutiny turns out to be - one accusation of bad faith, and the devastating revelation that the BPAS and Marie Stopes are registered charities. So it is impossible for a not-for-profit organisation to have any financial interests? If there were half the number of abortions in the UK, Marie Stopes would be unaffected? Come on. This is a simple conflict-of-interest case.

AndyPW's picture

So Nadine Dorries in her blog has referred to Dr. Evan Harris, a member of the BMA Ethics Committee, as "an assisted death zealot". Sounds like that has potential for a libel action.
She didn't like The Guardian article yesterday it seems, and prophesied "more interesting" content in other papers over the next few days. I assume she is disappointed in The Telegraph and other papers today then, which seem to confirm the same. A blog in the Telegraph also uncovers the tactics of the anti-abortion religious who intend to remove abortion one week at a time, and smother it in red tape.

Pat's picture

David "...If there were half the number of abortions in the UK, Marie Stopes would be unaffected? Come on. This is a simple conflict-of-interest case."

How sad that you have missed the point entirely. This amendment has been proposed with the intention of reducing abortion rates...and by persuading women who are pregnant to not carry out an abortion. THAT is a conflict of interest and carries a heavier price than a financial gain (which is clear in the article is not a motivating factor on behalf of the charities involved).

It is an ignorant and depressing state of affairs that there is no recognition for the fact that no woman chooses to go down this route without serious thought. To be confronted with the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy and then to be made to feel "sinful" is terrifying.

This is NOT a situation of women shopping for choices. The absurdity of this amendment should have been picked up much earlier than this, but I suspect it is part of Cameron's ongoing battle to satisfy both sides of the dividing Tory party.

Either way, thank goodness it has been halted but anyone attached to it should be ashamed for either a) trying to further their own agenda (but without declaring it) and/or b) being so ignorant on the issue.

Yonmei's picture

Marie Stopes is a woman-centred healthcare charity that performs a wide range of services of which abortion is only one. If their work and the work of other healthcare and education services got abortion rates down to the level we see in the Netherlands, they would still exist with a purpose and goals - indeed, the lowering of the abortion rate would demonstrably be a success for them.

Whereas CareConfidential exists for no other purpose but to leech money for counselling women with unplanned pregnancies. If unplanned pregnancies went down, and therefore the abortion rate went down, CareConfidential would lose its pool of potential clients. CareConfidential was founded clearly expecting to get a ton of clients if Nadine Dorries got her way and banned Marie Stopes and BPAS from providing counselling - they, not Marie Stopes, have the conflict of interest here.

CareConfidentai

Latest tweets