After already admitting that 70% of what she writes is fiction, it looks as though Nadine Dorries has even managed to confuse herself now about where she stands on abortion. For instance, here’s an exchange we had on Twitter the other night:
And yes, I do have a remarkable ability sometimes to remain calm and respectful – perhaps I should think about going into politics (or not!).
But anyway, during that exchange someone pointed out this piece from the Mail in 2008 – As a young nurse, Nadine witnessed the horror of late abortions. Now an MP, she says the law MUST be changed:
“While she is campaigning for a 20-week limit now, Dorries would ideally like to see the limit reduced to the European level of 13 weeks. Recently, she watched an abortion at 19 weeks in a North London hospital.
“A baby aborted at 19 weeks is given a lethal injection into the heart. It is the most scary and unbelievably horrible thing to experience. This is Death Row.”
Which is fair enough, in that it still doesn’t contradict what she said in her tweets. Dorries says in that Mail interview that her ideal would be to see the abortion time limit reduced to 13 weeks, but she doesn’t say that she has any intention of campaigning for it herself.
But then this morning Unity posted this little gem on Twitter:
And here’s the full quote:
“You are right about one thing. I do want to go lower than 20 weeks.”
A statement that really doesn’t fit with this one:
“I will never, ever, attempt to restrict abortion below 20 weeks EVER.”
Confused? Yes, I do believe she is. And she’s not the only one…
Too Much To Say For Myself 
Let’s look at someone from one of the most vulnerable groups. Say a 13 year old girl. It could take her up to 8 weeks (or longer) into the pregancy to realise she’s pregnant, particularly if she has irregular periods (not unusual in a teenager). Then another few weeks – say 5 – to pluck up the courage to tell her parents – or if she doesn’t have sympathetic parents try and find a doctor who will help. Oh and then there is a wait of ‘no more than three weeks’ on the NHS
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Sexualhealth/Pages/Abortionyouroptions.aspx
We’re already up to 16 weeks then. Assuming our fictional vulnerable 13 year old is organised.
In reality there can be a lot of reasons why someone is seeking a so called ‘late abortion’. But fudging like Dorries does is ludicrous. The question about abortion isn’t when ‘life’ begins (it makes more sense to say it begins at conception). The question is: should women be forced to go through pregnancy against their will?
And most ‘abortionists’ are charities. However if Dorries wants a situation where abortions are performed by unscrupulous types just in it for the cash, the best way to make that happen is a return to back street abortion.
Spot on Polly.
And as Unity has just pointed out on Twitter, in 2008 Dorries voted for a reduction in the abortion limit from 24 weeks down to 12.
‘However if Dorries wants a situation where abortions are performed by unscrupulous types just in it for the cash, the best way to make that happen is a return to back street abortion.’ Yes, exactly. Which bit of ‘if a woman needs an abortion she will get one anyway’ don’t the anti-choicers understand?
You own a paper Cath? Well goodness…
“You are right about one thing. I do want to go lower than 20 weeks.”
“I will never, ever, attempt to restrict abortion below 20 weeks EVER.”
Dorries – what a contradiction!
Dorries and her ilk operate on a thin edge of the wedge method, they are secretly anti-choice, and just keep ‘negotiating’ down the abortion limits, as well as introducing so many hurdles that legal abortion, whilst remaining on the books, becomes effectively unobtainable for most who want it.
We kinda woke up to that one.
The position here is odd, but not necessarily contradictory or confused: there is what Nadine Dorries says she would prefer, and what she says she will try to bring about. It is worth asking the question of why these two should be different, but let us set that to one side for a moment. So, as made clear in your detailed account, we have “I will never attempt to restrict abortion below 20 weeks” and “I do want to go lower than 20 weeks”. The first is about what she will do, the second what she wants. She would like the law to prevent abortion after 13 weeks or, ideally, 9 weeks; but she will never try to bring about such a law. The only possible inconsistency is that she is trying to persuade people of the merits of a lower limit — so we would have to exclude that from “I will never attempt to restrict abortion below 20 weeks” perhaps by taking it to refer to votes in parliament etc.
That leaves us with the curious idea of “I will argue for X (a lower abortion limit) but I will never vote for it.” Why would anyone maintain such an odd position? Possibly, as one of your questions suggests, because she believes the vote would not go her way; but MPs frequently vote for things they believe in despite knowing they will not prevail, so that doesn’t seem likely. Perhaps, instead, it is because of a commitment given, maybe to her constituents: something which constrains how she votes, but not what she campaigns for. That would give us: “I believe in a lower limit, and I will speak up for it, but I pledge that my votes in parliament will never seek to take the limit below 20 weeks.” Again though, why? And my own feeling from the way the comments are expressed — from the passion that seems to be there — is that it is much stronger than keeping a pledge. My only other suggestion is that it is akin to “I disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it.” It’s a bit of a stretch I admit, but we could take her to be saying she disagrees with abortion past 9 weeks and therefore in that sense would *like* the law to be in line with that, but on the other hand she defends absolutely the right to abortion up to 20 weeks for those who have a different view.
We might even applaud someone who defends another’s right despite their own opposition to it. Like I said though, it’s a bit of a stretch here.
Nadine Dorries and her ilk are looking to attack abortion rights by stealth (although I know you don’t need me to tell you that.)
Women need the 24 weeks. Many women do not discover they are pregnant until they are mid-term. Many abnormalities in the foetus are not detected until the 20 week scan, and women need time after that to consider a decision whether or not to end the pregnancy. All kinds of things can happen in a woman’s life that may cause her to change her mind about whether or not to continue with a pregnancy – her partner may leave her, she may become homeless, and so on and so on.
The point is that women have the right to make this decision for themselves at any point. It is none of anybody elses damn business.
Without control over our own fertility we have no control over our lives. We need to fight any and all attacks on abortion rights wherever we see them.
You were remarkably calm. Especially when she suggested the two of you might have things in common.
Brian: I agree with what you’ve said, insofar as it would be possible to hold the two beliefs simultaneously, but I don’t think you’re actually describing Dorries position as set out in the last quote, since she quite clearly says she does want to go to 13 weeks. She doesn’t say “I believe as an individual abortion above 13 weeks is undesirable, but I would never seek that outcome legally”
She says
“you are quite right about one thing, I do want to go below 20 weeks, I would settle for the European average of 13 weeks, but would prefer 9”
So which is it? I think Cath should take Dorries up on her offer to discuss it.
I don’t think BTW that allowing abortion only up to 13 weeks is being ‘pro choice’ really. Most women who have abortions aren’t planning on having one, amazingly enough, they may have many other life stresses, and expecting everyone who needs an abortion to be able to organise to have one by 13 weeks is just silly. 20 weeks isn’t adequate for a lot of women and girls. But hey Ms Dorries could always sue, it would make for an entertaining court case.
congrats on owning the graun by the way Cath, though I bet you wish it was the Mail really……
So she she has changed her mind? Flip flopped on a political hot potato in order to aplease voters….that’s good isn’t it?