nadine dorries misleads on abortion (again)

Nadine Dorries' latest contribution to the Cornerstone Group blog demonstrates several of the problems with her stance on abortion. At the very least, her post is self-serving and grossly misleading:

Research tells us that women who have abortions can experience mental health problems up to thirty years later..

.. for reasons entirely unconnected to abortion. As The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists notes for patients state:

"Some studies suggest that women who have had an abortion may be more likely to have psychiatric illness or to self-harm than other women who give birth or are of a similar age.

"However, there is no evidence that these problems are actually caused by abortion; they are often a continuation of problems a woman has experienced before."

For a sampe of research try here and here.

As I've argued before, it's also worth remembering the social consequences of societies and vocal groups which treat abortion as murder: depression can be a side-effect of social, rather than biological, circumstances. Above all, remember that the vast majority of women experience no mental health problems whatsoever.

Dorries' presentation of one side of the debate - and the failure to mention either the lack of consensus or any of the well researched counter-claims - is at best misleading, if not deliberately dishonest. Clearly, when Dorries argues for the need to reduce science into easily digestible chunks, she's just talking about the parts which suit her own agenda.

Back to Dorries:

..and the women themselves tell us how the decision to abort is never taken without coercion from either a boyfriend, parent or involved other.

Dorries' claim that no abortion has ever taken place without coercion - that no woman has ever exercised her own free will to choose an abortion - is both arrogant and patronising. It's an assertion without any apparent basis in fact - and part of Dorries' own conviction that all abortions are regretted.

That's not a claim that coercion never takes place, but that women are capable of making their own decisions. It's also not hard to imagine circumstances where a "boyfriend, parent or involved other" apply pressure to make women keep their unwanted pregnancies.

Then there's the presumption to speak for all women:

In an era of post feminism, do women not deserve a better deal than this?

This makes no sense. A better deal than being able to exercise choice?

Finally, Dorries slurs the motivations of the groups that seek to protect access to abortion:

On one side will be MPs like myself who think that after 40 years it’s time to accept that science has moved on and its time to reduce the upper limit.

We've already covered the problems with the claim to the scientific high ground. It's strange that this appeal to science would forget to mention the number of professional medical - let's call them scientific - bodies (including the BMA) who don't want the upper limit moved.

On the other side will be the pro choice lobby who want to see abortion made more freely available. When faced with this lobby which includes organisations such as Bpas, you have to ask why? Could the fact that they carry out almost half of all the abortions which take place have anything to do with it?

The suggestion that Bpas is interested in protecting access to abortion merely in order to maintain some kind of monopoly on the procedure is ludicrous beyond belief.

Could their interest in the issue perhaps instead have something to do with the fact that they - more than anyone else - have to deal with the consequences facing women with unwanted pregnancies? Could it have something to do with their knowledge that the ability to choose is what women want, and even need?