Abortion Limit Debate

The Conservative MP for Mid-Bedfordshire, Nadine Dorries, has for a while been proposing a reduction in the upper time limit for abortions from 24 to 20 weeks. Since she is an MP for my county, she pops up in the local paper a lot, so I’ve read a fair bit about this. Today I found an article on the BBC website on the subject here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7385099.stm

I went to her blog (http://www.dorries.org.uk/Blog.aspx ) and found that the reason for this article was that today marked the official start of her "20 reasons for 20 weeks" campaign website. An article on this made it to the front page of the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=564225&in_page_id=1770

I’ve been a bit dubious about this campaign from the beginning, not just about the issue itself (which I’m not going to go into detail on right now), but also the way in which the media campaign seems to have been handled by Dorries.

It has been claimed by many, including the respected Ben Goldacre of Bad Science fame, that Dorries has used misleading figures and tactics to promote her cause, even resorting to promoting a well-known urban myth in support of her case: http://www.badscience.net/?p=634

Dorries has also cried foul and complained that figures showing that there has been no improvement in the survival rates of foetuses between 20 and 24 weeks (one of the key drivers behind her motion) cannot be trusted because of pro-abortion bias.

Examples of her taking liberties with the truth can be found here: http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/16/you-shall-not-bear-false-witness/
And here: http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/28/the-dishonourable-member-for-mid-bedfordshire/

This bothers me. If there is a valid reason for reducing the abortion limit, then Dorries shouldn’t need to resort to this kind of behaviour. Nor is this the first time that Dorries has tried to get the law changed. (It has been suggested that her Christian beliefs are behind her persistence with this, but I’ll have to look into that).

In any event, it was the article in the Daily Mail today that made me decide to blog about this. Included in the article was Dorries’ list of 20 reasons, many of which I think are irrelevant, if not patently absurd. Leaving aside the ones quoting (disputed) figures, here are the ones I mean:

3. High-resolution 3D ultrasound images showing babies 'walking', yawning, stretching and sucking thumbs in the womb

The obvious question here is "So?" The foetuses move in the womb. How is this an argument against the abortion limit? Note also the use of the word "babies", not "foetuses". This happens throughout the article- wonder why.

8. Rising number of abortions being carried out between 20 and 24 weeks

In fact it is only 2% of the total number of abortions. The argument here seems to be that there are more being carried out within this time period, so we must make it illegal to stop them being carried out in this time period. Hardly convincing logic.

9. Leading public figures such as Tory leader David Cameron calling for a cut to at least 20 weeks

So fucking what? The leader of her own party is supporting her. Does his opinion carry more weight because he’s the leader of the Conservatives? Does it have any bearing at all on the medical evidence, which is ultimately the basis on which any decision should be made. Of course not. Argument from authority.

12. A possible link with mental illness for late abortions, say psychiatrists

This is dubious at best.

19. The Commons science and technology committee was heavily influenced by pro-abortion witnesses.

This "reason" really takes the piss. It’s a sure sign of the weakness of your arguments when you have to scream "bias!" By "heavily-influenced" she means "they didn’t agree with me".

Here is a link where you can view a press notice on the report: http://www.badscience.net/?p=560

The committee reviewed the evidence the pro-reduction side presented, and found that it didn’t hold up. Her response is to claim bias, and to call for a change in the law anyway. Shameful. And this is the woman elected to represent the people of Mid-Bedfordshire. Even better, she actually sits on the committee! Could she be any more of a sore loser?

But that’s not the best reason.

20. Picture of a 20-week foetus

Aw, look at that foetus. It looks just like a baby. See, it’s sucking its thumb! Look how cute it is. We’d better change the law.

Is this what passes for reasoned debate? A blatant attempt to play to emotions? Is this really the best argument she has?

Abortion is a serious issue, and should be treated as such. Nadine Dorries’ conduct in this matter, as far as I’m concerned, has been little short of dishonest, and not how an elected official should behave.

I’ll be keeping an eye on this.

EDIT-

She's not going up in my estimation: http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/03/26/whats-sauce-for-the-goose/