Abortion: Suzanne Moore Is a Fantasist
Nadine Dorries responds to an article by Suzanne Moore in which she accused Nadine of pushing an anti abortion agenda. Among other things.
13 Jul 2011, 01:06
Dorries v Moore: Seconds out, round two
At the present , the only place a woman can receive pre or post abortion counselling, which is paid for by the state, is from an abortion provider who obviously has a vested financial interest in the ultimate decision the woman makes.
Often, women have to return to the abortion clinic where the procedure took place to receive their post abortion distress counselling. What caring person believes that to be right?
Every objection, from whatever quarter, has been political. I am still waiting for one single objection rooted in fact and truth to be raised. And there’s the rub. There isn’t one, there can’t be, because if you care about the welfare of women the amendment is unarguable.
It is also necessary because abortion clinics operated by the second largest abortion provider in the country, BPAS, deploy soft marketing techniques which amount to an abuse of the women who walk into their clinics who are vulnerable and need help. A technique which calms a distressed woman by reassuring her ‘don’t worry, you may be upset but three out of four women of your age have done this’ is deployed to ensure women and young girls reach the ‘right’ decision and the clinic receives its payment for the abortion and counselling.
I know an elderly lady who used to run a wine shop in Liverpool and I once laughed with her that this was ironic as I had never seen her touch a drop of wine.” It’s easy”, she replied, “when they ask 'is this one nice?' I say, I don’t know, but we sell a lot if it and they always buy it.” Comfort marketing has been around for years, but the application to the decision making process of a vulnerable woman is unethical and intended to secure the bottom line.
BPAS may be a charity, but the £200k financial package for the Chief Executive has to be paid for somehow. Suzanne Moore wrote an article last Friday which was so riddled with fiction I feel compelled to respond. Suzanne has form. I once asked was she mad or just bad? She referred to this in her article and boasted that a former colleague asked if he could tick both boxes. I rest my case. I originally asked this question due to the fact that she appears to exist in a fantasy world of her own creation. Here’s a few examples:
"Dorries, as we know, wants to turn back the clock on sex education" I am not quite sure how wanting to introduce relationship counselling into sex education quite adds up to turning the clock back.
"Dorries and her allies are pushing an anti-choice agenda on abortion." We are pushing for the opposite, we want more choice by enabling women to seek help from independent sources and not those tied up in financial contracts.
"The line of counseling that Dorries and Field want to promote will tell women that abortion increases their chances of cancer and may lead to infertility." Have I said that? Where? The format of the counselling will be approved by a professional organisation such as the British Association of Counsellors and Psychotherapists.
"If any of us need to be reminded what happens when you make abortion illegal.." Why would anyone imply that I want to make abortion illegal? I fully support quick and easy access to abortion.
"This is not reflected by this government, which is seeking to push through these anti-choice counselling proposals without legislation or debate." The amendment will be on the face of the bill, debated and a vote. Hello in there Suzanne, are you listening?
Suzanne Moore, after fantasising about my intentions then moves on to paint a dark and depressing picture of adoption citing a touching anecdote of her time in a maternity hospital bed and witnessing a new mother grieve on her third day post delivery for a baby she had once had and given up for adoption.
I will refrain from making any detailed comment about the third day ‘baby blues’ syndrome and deal with the substance. Yes, that woman may have grieved for the baby she once gave up for adoption and obviously, that wasn’t the right thing for her to have done as she was living with the emotional consequences. However, many, many women who abort go through the same distress. Meet Tanya, Suzanne, and if you want to I can introduce you to a different Tanya every day of the year.
Because the baby hasn’t made the passage down the birth canal doesn’t make the loss any less or the distress any less acute. To many, the aborted baby they had felt kicking was still their baby and as hard as it may be for someone as ‘liberated’ as Suzanne claims to be to understand, to some women, knowing that they had given their baby life and a desperate couple a family would have been much easier to live with than the lifelong knowledge that they ended their baby’s life. The option of adoption provides a degree of comfort which the terminal finality of abortion lacks.
At the very end of her article Suzanne states ‘I want people to be given unbiased information’. Well, thank you Suzanne, you put the cats down and got there in the end. So do I, which is exactly what this amendment is about. Providing choice, removing bias, and making sure that only professionals who have no financial gain to be made from the ultimate decision making process get anywhere near a woman during the most vulnerable days of her life.
Comments (21)
Subscribe to this posts's comments feed
Other people will, no doubt, be along later to pull apart the holes in your argument, but I wanted to just raise a couple of issues with this article.
1/ The quotations from Suzanne Moore are formatted strangely. There's no indication of where her point ends and your response starts. Perhaps you could put her stuff in quotation marks. Or remove your responses from the blockquotes - they aren't quotes so they probably shouldn't be there.
2/ You repeat your previous error of getting the full name of BACP wrong. As you'll see from their web site (http://www.bacp.co.uk/), it's the British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy, not "Counsellors and Psychotherapists".
It's possible that you have a reasonable point to make. But if you took the time to correct silly errors like this it would be easier to work out what it is.
13/07/2011 09:25There's so much misinformation thrown around about Nadine and her parliamentary activities. This should be required reading for those who want to have a say in the matter.
13/07/2011 09:38As far as I can see, the only misinformation about Dorries and her parliamentary activities comes from Dorries herself :-)
If you have contrary evidence, I'd love to see it.
13/07/2011 09:42Nadine
Good to see you're finally willing to discuss your ideas somewhere we can ask questions. Up to now you've been broadcasting at us.
With regards to this quote:
"this amendment is about. Providing choice, removing bias, and making sure that only professionals who have no financial gain to be made from the ultimate decision making process get anywhere near a woman during the most vulnerable days of her life."
In order to get your thoughts onto the record, how do you respond to the charge in taking away the "bias" from "abortion companies", as you put it, you are putting the work into the hands of charities with religious links - charities that quite simply do will agree with one of the decision (as it is against their religion), and so are likely to do everything they can to talk them out of it?
I know you've been throwing the word "bias" around a lot, but you have to remember - bias doesn't mean "people that disagree with you" (!) If a group or individual does not want you to get an abortion, for whatever reason, they too are biased. The very definition of the word makes this clear.
Although as I see it, one is "biased" towards helping you make the decision you'd already made before you go to counselling, and the other is biased towards trying to change your mind.
In this context, if it fairer (or kinder) for someone to try and convince you you're wrong "during the most vulnerable days of her life"? or is it not kinder to allow the person in question to make their own decision? This has nothing to do with politics, this is about treating a person as an adult and allowing them to do what is their right without being made to feel they are wrong - and in no time during your argument have you attempted to justify this.
If you disagree with any of this, feel free to correct me - but please do not try and claim that a group with religious roots will not show bias. This has without a doubt been the most patronising part of your side of the argument so far.
13/07/2011 09:44I am in complete support with this amendment. I believe that every young person has the right to independent impartial advice on any major life issues, especially crisis pregnancy. This amendment is nothing but a positive thing for women. It gives them more freedom of choice. It gives them the chance to talk through all of their options before making a decision. Women need to be able to talk through there feelings in order for them to make the right decision for them.
This amendment gives more freedom and choice to women. We need to help every woman who finds herself in a crisis pregnancy situation, not just throw one solution at her and expect her to take it.
And Dave BPAS is correct it is the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. There is nothing incorrect in this articles. Here is the link http://www.bpas.org/bpaswoman.
13/07/2011 09:49Pollyanna,
I'm not talking about BPAS, I'm talking about BACP. And so is Dorries when she says:
"The format of the counselling will be approved by a professional organisation such as the British Association of Counsellors and Psychotherapists."
But as I said, the correct name for this organisation (taken directly from their web site) is the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy.
So, yes, there _is_ an error in the article. Denying it doesn't stop it being true.
13/07/2011 09:52What happens currently, does a GP have to refer a patient to an abortion clinic or can people just turn up and make an apointment?
Also, a mild quibble: The quotes are weirdly formatted, with no citation and author responses mingled within the quote, this is quite confusing - I'd perhaps suggest Dale & Co get a site 'style guide' worked out to present to authors with preferred ways to quote etc?
13/07/2011 10:05Hi Pollyana
I agree with your statement:
"I believe that every young person has the right to independent impartial advice on any major life issues"
However, as stated in my previous comment, I'm not sure allowing someone with religious roots - someone who has already decided you should *not* be getting an abortion - is the fairest way of doing this.
There are plenty of links between the charities Nadine promotes and religious groups, which worries me greatly.
To clarify - I *do* agree women should be given choice (which they already are) and I agree it should be unbiased (which is impossibly, by definition). However, I think taking the power from an "abortion provider" and putting it into the hands of a group with religious ties is simply an ideological thing, and means that when you say "I want an abortion", instead of them agreeing they will instead disagree. Neither is ideal, but I'm struggling to see how the latter is fairer to "vulnerable women".
13/07/2011 10:06Nadine's efforts with the BACP (despite her slight difficulty with their precise name) show that she is determined to ensure that the counselling/ advice given is truly independent and as unbiased as possible.
The religious group thing is a red herring here because they would be barred by the BACP from providing this state funded counselling because they are, by their very nature, biased as pointed out in these comments.
It has got to the stage now where objections to these amendments have to be manufactured. Counselling will NOT be compulsory, and religious grouops will NOT be eligible to provide it. What's your next imaginary problem?
13/07/2011 10:35Luke
Sorry, could you link me to the part of the proposal that says "religious grouops will NOT be eligible to provide it."?
Heresay is not the same as fact. Unless this is explicitly stated, the claim is worthless.
I mean no disrespect to you - I simply want to know. From what I've read from sources more aligned to the situation, no such provision will be in place.
13/07/2011 10:51Hi Chris,
My comment was based on the BACP statement thing on Nadine's blog which I don't have to hand but says something like 'independent, unbiased and ethical' counselling.
I don't mean religious groups couldn't deliver any counselling, they can now and will continue to do so I guess, but not the government funded stuff as approved by the BACP.
13/07/2011 11:59Sorry Dave I didn't see that bit. So I apologise for disputing you there.
The whole point of 'independent' is someone who has no interest in the outcome of the decision. Therefore who ever gives the counselling will have to put their religious/faith beliefs aside and care for the women. Every person has a belief (whether atheist, Christian or no belief at all) it is all a belief. Therefore every counsellor has pre-concieved ideas about every aspect of life, such as Crisis Pregnancy. Therefore the point is that every counsellor will be required to put aside there belief and care for the women. If you are going to argue that people with Religious beliefs shouldn't be able to give any advice or counselling then nobody should because everyone will have an opinion of some sort. Therefore if we want to make sure that any person who gives counselling has no faith or belief we have a big question to face - who is going to give the counselling? There is not a single person on this earth who doesn't have formed opinions or beliefs.
This amendment is not going to take any choice away from women it is going to give it back to them. It is going to give them the opportunity to truly discover how they feel and make an informed decision. Either that or we don't give women that option and instead they may live the rest of their life regretting their decision, whether it was abortion, adoption or keeping the baby. Women have a right to know. Why don't we want to give it to them?
13/07/2011 12:05There's a nice rebuttal to a lot of this article over at the Ministry of Truth.
http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2011/07/13/nadine-dorries-is-a-fantasist/
13/07/2011 12:12"The format of the counselling will be approved by a professional organisation such as the British Association of Counsellors and Psychotherapists."
Nadine Dorries has previously claimed on her own website that the BACP backed her amendment. She failed to give her readers the full picture however. In a statement following Ms Dorries' claim they said "BACP has never suggested or implied that organisations like BPAS and Marie Stopes International should stop providing abortion advice or any of their other ancillary services".
I wonder is she would issue a correction on her website? I'm sure she wouldn't want to mislead her readers.
The underlying point is that Ms Dorries has not actually supplied reliable evidence to support her claims that BPAS and Marie Stopes are unable to supply suitable counselling. She has instead relied on anecdote and vague claims of the influence of vested interest. This "evidence" does not convince me. More importantly, and despite Ms Dorries' claims, it does not convince the British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy either.
13/07/2011 12:20Questioner, the BACP also drew the distinction between counselling and advice.
13/07/2011 12:25This one is weel worth a read too if you want to understand this MP's position on abortion:
http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2011/04/11/visualising-dorries-and-the-anti-abortion-lobby/
Unity may be a little long winded sometimes, but the blog posts over there are always researched, referenced, accurate, and open to comment - i.e. the absolute opposite of Nadine's.
13/07/2011 13:51Completely with Nadine here - women should definitely be given unbiased counseling from government approved groups, not abortion clinics with a vested interest in the outcome.
13/07/2011 14:21Well done for this progress in common sense and fairness.
I have a few points:
1. I applaud Nadine for the amendment. It is true that not only can independent counselling help save lives, it can also save the mental health of the mother which may deteriorate in the longer term. I have heard testimonies of women who have had abortions hence my statement is not biased or based on a rash judgement.
2. The welfare of the mother is important and she still retains her choice even with the amendment.
3. Nadine is also right in terms of her focus on vulnerable women. That is why she is not for illegal abortions. She is just paving the way for more choice which pro-choice supporters lobby for. So what is the problem?
4. Nadine stands strong by refusing to allow money-grabbing, money-focused, profit-hungry companies taking the liberty out of our women. Surely, Nadine should be congratulated.
5. Any minor mistakes should not be an issue. The content is understandable and the message is clear and concise.
6. Let’s us just ask ourselves, “is it a problem for a women to be counselled and given an opportunity to review the choices they make?”
13/07/2011 15:17Luke_1, you are correct. It is possible that I have conflated advice and counselling in my previous comment. I'll clarify.
One of the aims of Ms Dorries amendment is to stop abortion providers from providing certain services which they currently do provide. This is not in dispute.
Earliet this month, Ms Dorries claimed on her website that BACP had given "its full support for [this] amendment" in a post entitled "BACP Support".
BACP however say that they have "never suggested or implied that organisations like BPAS and Marie Stopes International should stop providing abortion advice or any of their other ancillary services".
This is cleary not "full support" for the amendment. I believe that Ms Dorries should issue a correction and apology. The facts are surely not in dispute.
Again, the wider point is that Ms Dorries has not supplied credible evidence to support her claims about the behaviour of organisations like BPAS.
13/07/2011 15:51the 2008 act that changed the 1967 abortion bill already gives A aptient the chance to have a seconfd opinion that of A nurse, the 67 bill meant that all women who had An abortion had to see a pschiatrist, now they only have too if the Doctor feels he would liek them to. What sorng with a Nurse being a seocnd choice.
13/07/2011 16:58I have sometimes been quite critical of Nadine, but her amendment is spot on. I wrote about this prior to the pro-choice rally on Saturday. Rather than re-hash, I hope it's not too presumptuous to link to my post, which also contains some rather telling information with regards to the finances of BPAS. A commenter notes that Ann Furedi is planning to extend into IVF.
It is also worth noting that LIFE are BACP accredited and as a result their non-directive counselling approach is being questioned in some Catholic circles, some orthodox Catholics believe that to be non directive is not the correct stance for a pro-life organisation. By contrast Sunny Hundal and Diane Abbott are preaching calumny about LIFE being "religious nutjobs" when in fact they are non-denominational.
BPAS and MSI are NOT BACP accredited and I speak as one who came so very near to aborting a pregnancy thanks to MSI, who booked a procedure in for me on the say so of a third party, when I rang to confirm the appointment I asked about counselling. None had been booked, however an abortion had, when I asked if I could have counselling and then decide, their response was to book me in a slot, half an hour before the abortion. I asked whether they should cancel the abortion appointment in case I changed my mind, the answer was no, it was best to keep it as it was, so I could just proceed straight afterwards with no delay. I was also told that if I cancelled the abortion appointment, it would be impossible to book another in time, they were very busy. I was 7 weeks pregnant. My daughter is now 7.
I have since spoken with women suffering from abortion related PTSD who all relate similar stories and thus feel very strongly about how clinics coerce women into abortions, with no time to think things through. This amendment is far more women-centred than it is bring presented. Why don't the pro-aborts like it? It shows abortion for what it is, serious and grave matter, a last resort, not an automatic right, a decision that needs to be truly informed and considered in the light of all of the facts.
www.carolinefarrow.com
14/07/2011 00:44