Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Nadine Dorries Accuses Select Committee

Tory MP Nadine Dorries has accused the Science & Technology Select Committee of being "hijacked" by "powerful vested interests" in the abortion 'industry'. She has released a minority report which can be read HERE. She concludes her statement...
MPs have not been given the opportunity to consider all the evidence that could
have been made available. The facts have been shadowed and the report has been
hijacked by those with powerful vested financial interests in the abortion
industry.

This is controversial stuff. More on Nadine's blog HERE.

50 comments:

dynamite said...

Vested interests in the abortion industry like having been a director of the abortionists at BUPA? Like Nads? Makesyawannapuke don't it?

Chris Cummins said...

Cranmer has an artlcle on abortion on his blog with graphic and distressing pictures.

It says it all.

Just Labour said...

If it was a hijacking then I dont think the committee seemed to mind too much. Most of the members, I suspect, had already decided what they were going to support in the final report

Anonymous said...

http://www.badscience.net/2007/10/oooooh-im-in-the-minority-report/

Chris Paul said...

The truth is Iain that there was a determined attempt by Nad Dorries and her Nad mates to hijack this committee with un-science and un-technology and it has completely failed on their three main objectives:

- banning abortion (which is their secret one)
- reducing the time limit (their trojan horse)
- instigating cooling off period (tending to take a further two weeks off the limit)

These people were and are part of a real vested (and vestmented) interest group. A group which has US allies that have stooped to terrorism, gangsterism and doctor murder.

They've been heard. But they've lost the argument on the time limit and on the ten day "cooling off" period too.

However it is quite clear that there is a consensus that more avoidance of abortion through sex education, scientific advice, freely available contraception for those in need/want of it, ring-fenced money for sexual health clinics, and general poverty and ignorance reduction.

These would be supported by all sides of the argument ...

... except that is the greatest of the zealots. Actually against most of the above. Why do they not get behind these things instead. Perhaps stand up against the absurd propaganda against barrier methods in Africa that is fuelling the almost Malthusian revenge of AIDS/HIV.

In one local council - very likely many miles from here - two vociferous and pi councillors of faith stood up against a planning consent for a minor detail (some back up air conditioning plant I think) at an established clinic.

Their own bulging track records in and out of the sack indicated that their great fondness for and adherence to mother church's teachings did not extend to their own wonderfully diverse but ashamed and secretive sexual activities (fornication, adultery, sodomy and gomorrah), just to the repression of women and the denial of science by men in cassocks.

I don't know how the pair of them have stayed out of Private Eye to be honest.

Anonymous said...

dynamite? Get real. As a BUPA nurse I object to that comment. There is a big difference between the care we provide for people who are ill and Bpas who are private hospitals who do nothing other than end life. There is a big difference between hospitals which care for people in a compassionate and caring way and those who only accept patints wishing to abort. I have asked at our head office when Nadine was a director and apparently she resigned in December 1998 - she was responsible for introducing our childcare division. it's people like you trying to distort the truth who make me puke.

Jilted John said...

I'm afraid I am not going to read the report for the simple reason that I don't need to. She has been talking since the very start of the debate about "the abortion industry", as if suggesting that there exists a group of directors who rub their hands each year and say "I see abortion figures are up again - fantastic!" Therefore there is precisely zero chance of it saying "after carefully considering all the evidence, I have decided I was wrong after all, and having an abortion is fine" and every chance of it having seized on any and all evidence that supports the anti-abortion case and finding ways to dismiss that which undermines it.

I don't mind anyone being morally opposed to abortion. I'd even go as far as to say that if you believe a foetus is a human being in its own right, then you have a duty to be morally opposed to abortion. I do mind them hinting that they are only 'scientifically' opposed to it, and are open to changing their minds.

In fairness, many pro-abortion people act in a very similar way, and that makes me just as angry, if not more so.

Anonymous said...

I think she is going to end up looking a bit silly if this is anything go by; http://www.badscience.net/2007/10/oooooh-im-in-the-minority-report/#more-561

Iain Lindley said...

Seems like a pretty pointless report to me. Most of the MPs had clearly already made their minds up - and none more so than Ms Dorries.

Chris Rodger said...

I have posted this on Nadine Dorries blog:
You make a serious allegation against the Guardian and by implication the journalist (Ben Goldacre) that wrote the piece. Yet as he explains here (http://www.badscience.net/2007/10/oooooh-im-in-the-minority-report/#more-561), he based his article on published information.
You should either justify why you have de facto accused him of "a breach of parliamentary procedure" or apologise and withdraw the comment.

Anonymous said...

oh dear. Dorries needs to reconcile herself with the fact that people are happy treating abortion as a trivial decision.

She is in a minority in this country, and her paranoid rantings about the committee having been hijacked are nonsense.

Reactionary Snob said...

Iain,

She may be a Tory MP, which is normally a good thing. She is, however, a total idiot, which is not.

Look at this wonderful post from:

http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/2007/06/06/mad-nad-2-shooting-marlin-with-an-uzi/

Love, or what you will,

RS

PS - bought your book. All rather good.

Trumpeter Lanfried said...

chris cummins: I looked at Cranmer's pictures. Distressing indeed.

It used to be the law that Coroner's juries always had to view the body. How about a rule that mothers who abort after ten weeks should be required by law to view the body? That might concentrate a few minds.

Tony Kennick said...

There are a science committee, they looked at the evidence and apart from one thoroughly debunked study there was none to support the idea of lowering the limit.
Perhaps the anti lobby should try and get a less flawed study done if they want to bring about change.

Anonymous said...

Not that she has an axe to grind herself, you understand...

machiavelli said...

Does that mean she doesn't agree with them, then?
Personally I'm strongly pro-abortion.

Dave said...

Oh perhaps those behind the "Minority Report" are not very bright?

http://www.badscience.net/2007/10/oooooh-im-in-the-minority-report/#more-561

Madasafish said...

Wel I have no strong feelings on this subject , but she seems to me to be saying the system does not work.

Tough. MPs make the system.
If it's wrong , fix it.

But minority reports blaming the sytem for not getting all the evidence fail to convince me.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

The BBC exhibiting more than its usual share of bias in this one, citing:

"Pro-choice and anti-abortion MPs are expected to table amendments.."

So its ok to say "pro-choice" but not "pro-life". "Pro-life" becomes "anti-abortion".

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7069011.stm)

And in other newws, Bears have been found defacating in Woodland.

Anonymous said...

..... abortionists at BUPA

"As a BUPA nurse I object to that comment..... it's people like you trying to distort the truth who make me puke."

According to the Department of Health, BUPA has 7 hospitals approved for abortions.

Anonymous said...

This will be the same Nadine Dorries who was once a BUPA director, will it? The NHS commissions abortions from at least 8 BUPA hospitals - not so bothered when the coin was hitting her pocket then?

troymolloy said...

Reactionary Snob, thanks for the link. Makes for a very good read.

Personally I'd be more 'comfortable' with a 12-16wk legal limit, but whilst I'm thoroughly anti-abortion on a personal level I am resolutely pro-choice when it comes to legislation, in much the same way that as a non-smoker I abhor the smoking ban.

Anonymous said...

Since many of the anti-lobby seem to be Catholic perhaps we could have their views on the

The destruction of South American Civilisation and culture.

Centuries of terror and mutilation under the Inquisistion in Europe

The genocide of the Cathars

The contradictory and insane stand against contraception, which has brought overpopulation, disease and misery to vast areas of the globe.

As an organisation the Catholic church has more blood on it's hands that Pol Pot and Hitler combined, so a little less pious moralising about 'murder' from their adherents would probably be welcome.

judith said...

When Ms Dorries makes this amount of fuss over all the lives lost in current wars, then I may, just may, be inclined to listen to what she has to say.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one or perform one. But keep your hysterical nose and your legislative powers out of other people's business.

If anyone posting here thinks that an overwhelming majority of women who choose to abort treat the matter frivolously or lightly, then you don't know what you are talking about - I do.

Mountjoy said...

At least someone has the guts to stand up to the Labour baby murderers.

Patriccus said...

I've lost count of the number of people who appear to be under the deluded impression that Nadine Dorries is pro-life/anti-abortion. She, like her colleague and fellow author of the minority report Dr. Bob Spink, does not support total abolition of abortion - rather, following the publication of medical evidence (the kind that was ignored or rubbished by this smokescreen of a Select Committee) and changing public attitudes towards abortion (partly as a result of 4-D ultrasound images pioneered by Prof. Stuart Campbell, another expert inexplicably excluded from the enquiry), that the time limit in which abortions may be carried out should be reduced.

This Committee report is a sham from start to finish.

Anonymous said...

Exceptionally for a select committee report, all those submitting written and oral evidence were asked to declare any relevant interest. These declarations were exhaustively listed in the text of the report. So there isn't very much which is secretive about the evidence or the background of those who submitted it.

I think what Dorries is doing is accusing Goldacre of a "breach of parliamentary privilege". I am not sure she quite understands what this means.

dynamite said...

Anon 12.48 - in what way does any of that negate what I said? How does it distort the truth? She chose to be a director of one of the main players in "the abortion industry" - did she not know that BUPA perform abortions?

Susie Owen said...

I heard Ms Dorries on the Today programme earlier this morning. From what I heard, she is only asking for all the facts to be properly presented to MPs for their consideration.

It's a sad day for democracy when an MP is attacked just because she wants to see a fair and balanced approach to an issue as important as this.

The main report is nothing but a whitewash. It seems that facts which are not politically convenient for the pro-choice lobby have been ignored.

Anonymous said...

Age of survival has nothing to do with it; science has nothing to do with it. It is a moral matter and abortion is wrong in all circumstances.

Anonymous said...

Just followed your link Iain to Nad's blog. Her report makes perfect sense to me. Can't understand the level of nastiness in the comments.

dynamite said...

"At least someone has the guts to stand up to the Labour baby murderers."

Is that a joke?

Anonymous said...

Judith,

Rather a non-sequiter to the discussion - nobody has suggested that women simply breeze through an abortion decision, which I am sure are in the significant minority.

With regards to your suggestion that "if you don't like abortion don't have one" (yet another phrase parroted by the pro-abortion movement), you are inconsistent - you firstly appear to suggest that Ms Dorries and other reform-minded MPs should speak out on issues such as wartime casualties. You then perform an about turn, sanctimoniously ordering legislators to "keep their noses and legislative powers out of other people's business". Either you want individuals to comment on moral issues or you do not, you cannot have it both ways.

On the whole, I believe that Ms Dorries is to be congratulated on highlighting such an abuse of the parliamentary system (though this would hardly be the first and I suspect not the last time such a wool-pulling exercise has been carried out in relation to this issue).

Laurence Boyce said...

It’s a complete mystery to me Iain why you rate Nadine Dorries at all. She really hasn’t got a clue.

Yak40 said...

"How about a rule that mothers who abort after ten weeks should be required by law to view the body? "

Excellent idea. I'm neither religious nor doctrinaire but the fact remains the UK's abortion rate is disgustingly high and the fact that it's promoted by a political party is also revolting, shades of Red China or the Soviet Empire.

Daily Referendum said...

I think it would be sensible to reduce the time limit now that life is becoming viable in increasingly premature babies.

I find it hard to understand that you can have a Doctor trying to save the life of a 22 week old baby in one room, whilst another Doctor is aborting a 24 week old baby next-door.

Little Black Sambo said...

Most of the ranting language comes from the Pro-Choice people, who accuse the other side of ranting.

Anonymous said...

Jilted John and Chris Paul I agree very much - the "abortion industry" label is just a smear and nonsense and does not advance intelligent debate.

One of the key issues appears to be the age at which (another euphemism!) termination can be done, but when you listen as I did this morning to the expert arguments on Radio 4, the differences in reality appear to be quite narrow.

If you have a strong religious objection, that's one thing, and you should say so rather than playing games, propaganda, dirty tricks and manouvres, a la the "debate" in the US.

Iain you should know better than to repeat these hollow propagandistic labels as you are an intelligent Tory - bringing the hollow rhetoric of the US campaigners here will help nobody.

"The Informer"

jafo said...

As far as I can see the aim of Nadine Dorries and others was not to make abortion illegal, but to bring down the time limit from 24 weeks.

I'm not claiming any kind of scientific knowledge or vested interest. However, I can't help but feel that referring to a "foetus" rather than a baby makes it much easier to gloss over what is actually being done, though I accept this is a scientific term. It seems to me that when babies can be born and survive at 24 weeks, we shouldn't be aborting them at that stage. Medical science moves on, the law needs to as well. I'm not against abortion, but I think the limit should be reduced.

Anonymous said...

So, patriccus, you've actually deigned to read the report "from start to finish"?

jsfl said...

BBC are having their own 'Election' now that Gordon has spolied everone's fun.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/politics/default.stm

aardvark said...

"I think what Dorries is doing is accusing Goldacre of a "breach of parliamentary privilege". I am not sure she quite understands what this means."

Dorries is inexperienced in Parliamentary matters. What she didn't realise was that the documents were already in the public domain.

Anonymous said...

What is so hypocritical of Dorries is that, as a director of BUPA, she used to be part of the abortion industry.

Kat said...

What is the 'abortion industry'? - I think this article, published in The Sun puts it quite well, for those who don't want to read the whole thing, note this - "Call a Marie Stopes clinic and you will be given methods of payment and a run down of quickie appointments."

HEADLINE: WHY ARE WE FORCING THOUSANDS OF WOMEN TO KILL THEIR BABIES?

BYLINE: Emma Jones

BODY:
LAST year British women killed 188,004 babies.

I know that sounds crude. I know it sounds cruel. But it is true.

Our nation's abortion figures are the highest on record, according to the Office Of National Statistics.

Meanwhile the population's growth is the lowest on record -which stores up all kinds of problems for the future.

Why is it that healthy young women feel they have no option but to kill their babies?

Some might feel that raising a child in Britain is getting harder and harder.

Career pressures and the most expensive childcare in Europe are among the factors to blame.

Spiralling house prices and crumbling schools mean young families struggle to cope.

Taboo

Others might say that the nation has simply forgotten the difference between right and wrong.

Abortion hardly seems to be an issue any more -unlike in the United States where it is a red-hot potato.

Here the abortion business's slick marketing seems to offer a convenient way out for many pregnant women.

According to a survey by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, at least one in three women will have had an abortion by the age of 45.

But we never even talk about these deaths.

It is a taboo subject that is still swept under the carpet.

While as a nation we are obsessed with cases such as that of Diane Pretty who fought for the right to die, no one spares a thought for the thousands of babies being wilfully killed each day.

It is impossible to say how many successful women are hiding this dark secret. But many do -millions of them.

Twenty-something women who are sacrificing their babies for careers have fuelled the abortion boom.

This was once considered to be a ripe age to start a family.

For women between 25 and 29 abortion rates have risen in the past year.

Ironically, only the rich and the growing army of uneducated teenage mums are breeding more and more in New Labour's Britain.

Our teenage birth rate is the second highest in the developed world, according to figures announced by the children's organisation UNICEF today.

It has fallen to the elite and the under-achievers to replenish our society the haves and the have-br-alls. Abortion was legalised in 1967 as an emergency measure for difficult pregnancies. Now it has become a conveyor-belt convenience for career women, as easy as going to get a tooth out.

Termination is now the most frequently performed operation in the UK. It is big business at Pounds 500 a time.

Call a Marie Stopes clinic and you will be given methods of payment and a run down of quickie appointments.

They even offer a service that allows busy women to be back at their desks within an hour. Abortion is promoted as an easy fix.

In 2000, Marie Stopes, a corporation run as a charity, turned over Pounds 19million.

Their pamphlets don't tell you about the feelings of bereavement that follow abortion, coupled with higher instances of suicide and cancer of the breast and womb, according to many in the field.

Higher abortion rates are just one reason why Britain's population is dwindling. Women are being beaten by their body clocks, and eating disorders -that other little national pastime that we don't like to talk about -are making them sterile.

Things are so bad that the number of births last year fell below 600,000 for the first time in 25 years.

Apparently the EU plans to allow 60million immigrants into Europe to take care of our ageing population.

There is no will from the Government to encourage young women to have babies.

They hope that 3.5million immigrants will plug the gap here over the next two years.

This is a knee-jerk solution.

Policies which support women and families are the answer.

I am pregnant. I am 27. I want to have my baby.

Why is it so many of my generation are killing theirs?

Chuck Unsworth said...

What is the "Abortion Industry"?

Industry?

Such as?

Kat said...

Industry in the sense that the focus is on delivering a product for payment, without care for the consequences or the woman involved. Specifically, in the case of abortion the negative health impacts on women, the uncaring way that the service if provided, the lack of alterntives on offer - because there is no payment for those. Many who have had abortions at BPAS and Marie Stopes clinics have described it as a conveyor belt process and their artitles that refer to this. Basically, treating women as a piece of meat.

Dave said...

Iain:
Oooh, look. Nadine doesn't want anymore comments on her blog. Isn't that the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la I can't hear you" ?

Noleen Porridge said...

Poor Nadine is so terribly busy, what with having to fill in pesky forms for her expenses and the like that she simply doesn't have time to read all of her fan mail. She does have time to read emails about her blog though. Most odd. I am sure the Mail would've snapped her by now if she wasn't so terribly busy ( did I mention how terribly busy she is and all for just 60K ?!!!). A column in You magazine would be the perfect forum for her wonderful insights into the heady world of politics.

Chuck Unsworth said...

I wonder why she is no longer allowing comment. After all, even Miliband doesn't seem to find that aspect difficult, and, God knows, he's hampered enough.

However there are some real issues as to the accuracy of statements in her 'minority report' about the availability of evidence.

hannah said...

Abortion industry?? Nadine Dorries' argument is totally facile. It is hard to see why doctors working in an NHS with patients waiting months for treatment need to create business for themselves. Moreover she advocates reducing abortion limit to 20 weeks. Only 1.6% of abortions happen over 20 weeks. Hardly a great deal of "business" for the doctors. The argument does not add up and is an absolute insult to the medical profession.