#Dorries on 'His Grace'....

http://blog.dorries.org/

#Dorries on #Cameron 'he made me do it '

Quote:

'It was he who insisted the word “independent” was inserted into the amendment and I left the meeting feeling supported and encouraged.'Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033505/Cameron-branded-gutless-Tory-MP-caving-Clegg-abortion.html#ixzz1WySbluDT

#Dorries: PILLS the modern day 'Back Street Abortion' Does Dorries have these figures to hand of how many women use this method ?

Women are risking their health and even their lives by taking illegal abortion pills bought online - and young girls who want to keep their pregnancy secret are particularly vulnerable. As experts warn of a dangerous trend, Your Life investigates

She had never thought she would consider an abortion. But when 19-year-old Lara got pregnant after a one night stand, she knew it was her only choice.

But forced to keep her pregnancy a secret, Lara went online and bought abortion drugs to take at home.

Despite it being illegal to take the drugs without the supervision of a medical expert, some women like Lara now feel they have no other option but to risk their health by terminating their pregnancy alone at home.

For most women who go the official route for an abortion, even in the earliest stages of pregnancy, they will visit their clinic as many as four times.

They will sit through a consultation, come back to take a pill under supervision, return up to two days later for another that will induce the abortion, before a final follow-up meeting.

The law says abortion pills must be taken in the presence of a doctor or nurse. And as much as the second pill is administered under supervision, women are allowed home straight after they take it. In fact, some have told harrowing stories of being sent home bleeding on public transport and doubled over in pain in public toilets.

But for some women, the experience gets even worse than that. Desperate to terminate their pregnancy, they are buying abortion pills for £15 online, opting to break the law and put their health at risk rather than work their way through the official system. Young girls wanting to keep their pregnancy secret are increasingly taking this dangerous route.

And with no assurances about what the drugs really are, and no medical advice about what to do if things go wrong, this could become a very dangerous trend.

Patricia Lohr, medical director of the largest dedicated abortion provider, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, says: “One of the biggest risks with buying drugs over the internet is that in most cases they’re uncontrolled and unregulated so there’s no way of telling that they are what they say they are. This means they could be ineffective or even harmful.

“When you go through the proper channels, you’ll be asked about your medical history. Not everyone is suitable for an abortion pill – for instance it shouldn’t be prescribed for women on certain medications or with particular conditions.

“It’s also vital to know exactly how far along in the pregnancy you are as this determines how the pill should be taken and whether or not it will be effective. This may not happen online.”

Lara, from the Republic of Ireland, felt she had no option but to take the risk. She was always against abortion, until she got pregnant herself.

“I was in my final year at an all-girls’ Catholic school and had won a provisional place to study at a top university in Dublin,” Lara explains.

“When I got pregnant after a one-night stand over the Christmas holidays in 2009, I wanted to scream. But I could tell no one. Having a baby would have meant getting expelled and having to give up my uni place for life as a teenage single mum.”

Lara tried all the old wives’ tales to end the pregnancy herself. None worked, so she went online.

“I went out to an internet cafe to research the abortion pill. I was looking over my shoulder the entire time I was there.

“Being pregnant was scary enough, but the idea of being arrested for having an abortion illegally was terrifying.

“I got a tip from a chat forum for pregnant girls, and bought mifepristone and misoprostol online for £60 each. I got up at 6am each day to wait for the postman so I could hide the package as soon as it arrived.

“It was an agonising wait, because I was six weeks pregnant and they need to be taken before nine weeks.

“A few hours after taking the pills the cramps and the bleeding were excruciating, but I felt I deserved that pain.

“Of course I couldn’t go to a doctor or I could’ve faced jail.

“The pills worked, and I’m at uni now. But every time mum or dad tells me they’re proud of me, part of me wants to confess that actually I think I am the most shameful person in the world.”

At BPAS clinics, women will also be given information about what is normal after the abortion. “There’s a small risk of potentially serious complications, such as severe bleeding and infections, and it’s vital that women understand when they may need to seek medical advice,” adds Patricia.

“Finally, a clinic will check whether the treatment has worked. It’s hard to do this yourself as pregnancy tests may give inaccurate results.”

But with the process for legal abortions bound by complicated laws that date back to the 1960s, some experts are concerned the system is outdated and could drive more women to take extreme measures.

Last month, BPAS failed in its bid to change the law to allow women to take the second element of the abortion medication – misoprostol – at home, as women in the United States, France, India, Ethiopia and North Korea already can.

BPAS’s associated director, Clare Murphy, says a major pressure on women having abortions is the long distances they have to repeatedly travel.

“Women regularly travel more than an hour to access early medical abortion, often on public transport,” she says. “Our clinic in Cardiff sees women who have driven for three hours to get there.”

But, warns Clare, that is no reason to opt for playing Russian roulette with online drugs.

She says: “We believe when women have a choice they prefer to be treated by someone they can trust, rather than obtain the medication from an unknown source online.

“You do not know what you’re getting, you may not know the correct dosage, and one of the main risks is that it simply will not work.

“Even though all the evidence shows that for early abortion it is safe and effective to administer misoprostol at home, it is important women receive comprehensive advice as to what to expect, what is normal, and what might indicate a problem.

“And they know they have someone to turn to – for medical and emotional support.”

As things stand, early medical abortion typically involves taking two sets of medication – mifepristone, which detaches the pregnancy, and then misoprostol, which induces the abortion – 24 to 48 hours apart.

It is increasingly requested by women seeking abortion in the first nine weeks of pregnancy, with more than 70,000 treatments carried out in 2009.

Considered safer and less traumatic than a surgical procedure, it is strongly opposed by pro-life campaigners, although experts say there is no medical evidence to show that taking one set of the pills at home would endanger the woman’s health.

The process can often involve four trips to the clinic: the consultation, one for each dose of medication and a follow-up.

“We want to take out the misoprostol appointment,” says Clare, “and give women the drugs to take away with them when they attend for mifepristone.

“This would eliminate all the stress about travelling home, knowing the cramping and bleeding could begin at any moment, the financial difficulties of coming back or problems organising childcare.

“But if access to abortions became harder, with cost or other barriers growing, online abortion drugs could become the backstreet abortion of the 21st century.”


Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/health-news/2011/03/08/are-online-pills-the-new-backstreet-abortion-115875-22973709/#ixzz1WsvZBgwv

#Dorries: Do NOT force your abortion views onto my body ! (archived article)

By Niklas Albin Svensson

Wednesday, 15 October 2008

Parliament will once again be discussing the Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill in October. Once again battle is joined between those who defend the right for women to decide over their own bodies, and those who want the state to do it for them. This time, however, there is room for improvements to existing legislation - not just calls to turn the clock back fifty years. 1967 Act In 1967, abortion was made legal under certain provisions. Women who want an abortion within 24 weeks had to get the approval of two doctors, who had to sign a paper that a continuation of the pregnancy involves a greater risk to 'the physical or mental health' of the woman or her existing children than a continuation of the pregnancy. In practice, most doctors would sign such a statement but it establishes the principle that the doctors are the one to judge the woman's situation - rather than the woman herself. After 24 weeks, abortion is restricted to cases where there is 'risk of grave physical or mental injury'. If you live in Northern Ireland, it is almost impossible to get a legal and safe abortion - the 1967 Act does not apply. Since 1967, Parliament has, particularly in later years, received persistent demands for the lowering of the 24 week limit. The so called "pro-lifers", in reality a coalition of various reactionary Christian groups, appeal to "developments in science". The professional associations such as The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and The Royal College of Nurses are firm defenders of the current time limit, and even want to improve access to abortion within that limit. The less sophisticated argument, that abortion is murder, is usually appealing to emotions evoked by images of foetuses, in a completely unscientific way. The Christian right around Europe and the world have time and time again shown their complete contempt for human life. In Poland and the U.S., for example, there have been several instances of attacks on and murders of doctors that perform abortions. More significantly, prohibition of abortion does not necessarily reduce the number of abortions. Around the world it has been estimated that 20 million unsafe abortions take place every year, resulting in the death of some 80,000 women. The so called "pro-life" groups do not seem to care much for the life of these, mainly poor women. Pro-choice Most of these issues were brought to a fore in May this year, when the Human Embryology Bill was debated in parliament (see Defend a woman's right to choose, by Rachel Heemskerk, 07 May 2008). The anti-choice ("pro-life") amendments were soundly defeated, with 304 to 233. This was no thanks to the media who in the run-up to the vote broadcasted and published plenty of images of foetuses in an attempt to put pressure on the MPs, primarily of the Labour Party. Neither did the government help, calling for a free vote, since it was a "matter of conscience". Abortion is of course to some extent a "matter of conscience" - to the women that have them - not to the MPs that legislate. In preparation for the bill's return to Parliament in October, a number of MPs have submitted improvements to the bill. The perhaps most heated discussion will be on Northern Ireland - an amendment have been introduced to remove the disgraceful exception. The second most important is the one that would remove the requirement of two doctors' permission, replacing it with the same phrase that is used for cosmetic surgery: abortion is to be conducted according to 'the conditions and principles of good medical practice'. Matter of conscience? Others suggest that nurses can perform the early abortions (the one that only require administration of a pill) and the performing of earlier abortions in GPs surgeries. All of these have the backing of the aforementioned professional associations. Socialist Appeal naturally supports these important steps to improve women's right to choose. Improving access to abortion will make it easier for working class women as well as students to access these services when they are needed. Yes to improved access to abortion - no to a return to the back streets!

http://www.socialist.net/no-return-back-street-abortions.htm

#Dorries: Get your rosaries off my ovaries...OR if it ain't broke DON't fix it !

• 

article by Suzanne Moore

Back to the 50s … Imelda Staunton plays an abortionist in the film Vera Drake. Photograph: Momentum Pictures/PA

 

I do remember leaving the party very fast. I must have been about 11 and in a haze, looking through magazines while the women ooohed and aaahed over plastic boxes. God knows why my mum had made me go to a Tupperware party with her. In no shape or form did it resemble a party – it was just full of boring neighbours feigning huge enthusiasm for salad spinners. Nonetheless I felt the atmosphere change suddenly as the plastic lids were snapped back on the boxes. The women were no longer talking about the storage of leftovers but about getting "rid" of things. And "the right thing to do". It was tense. My mum, menthol cigarette in a holder – an affectation she had picked up in the States – got to her feet and said: "Christ, you really don't know what you are talking about. If it wasn't for abortion I'd have a football team by now."

In a blur, we knocked over mountains of sandwich containers as we were given our coats. Safe to say we never went to any more Tupperware parties. I thought at the time that it was because we were too good. I now see it's because we were too bad.

On the way home she told me what it was like getting pregnant in the glorious 50s, years before she had me. Sitting in the bath, drinking quinine from the chemist she worked in then, eventually scraping together the money to go to London. There, in a small room, another woman clipped the neck of her cervix and told her to "just go".

She collapsed bleeding in the toilets of Liverpool Street station. That's where she miscarried or aborted the foetus, or the baby, or whatever you wish to call it. I am not squeamish about these words. I have no desire to reduce every abortion to a meaningless bunch of cells or cytoblasts as some feel compelled to do.

I know what having an abortion is like myself so I could make a terrible joke about it running in the family. Actually, my point is that abortion is a very common experience. Nor am I trying to suggest that the proposed amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill concerning counselling mean a return to these dark old days. The reason I am telling you all this is because I admired my mother's refusal to be ashamed of her own experience. Now this new breed of anti-abortionists snip round the edges of the process with their strategies of delay ... er, sorry, "independent counselling". But beware their language of care. This is not about care but about control. This control absolutely depends on shame: sexual shame. This shame keeps us quiet. Shame keeps us locked into individual guilt. Shame even makes us stupidly grateful that we are allowed to have any choice at all.

This whole debate around counselling pivots on the idea of deep and private shame, positing the idea of counselling being used to sell an evil procedure. Women are always "vulnerable" dupes, never simply adults who have made decisions. Some weird pension analogy has been brought in, though health care is nothing like it as advice and services do often come from the same people ie: doctors.

The truth is that, in theory, the argument about abortion is won. Most people, however uncomfortably, support a woman's right to choose. We feel that pushing a woman to give birth to a child she does not want is heartless. We know the lengths women go to. The moral cowardice of the Irish polity results in those women, often alone and shivery, whom you see on Ryanair flights.

There is little point trying to persuade those who are religiously opposed to abortion (though I am intrigued at the Catholic attitude to the foetus – miscarried babies are not buried as they are not baptised) but we can simply remind ourselves we are living in a largely secular democracy.

Loving the unborn more than the born is politically convenient, as the unborn do not have to be housed or educated or parented. The 60,000 abortions that Nadine Dorries and Frank Field hope to stop via "unbiased" counselling will presumably produce 60,000 children that someone has to look after. (I am not sure where this figure of 60,000 comes from, but then to be fair I am not sure Dorries does either.)

We are repeatedly told this is an "emotive" issue. The new vocabulary of the anti-abortion lobby is full of vaguely feminist platitudes – not feminist enough to counsel the men who walk away from pregnancies but still. Underneath, we are fallen women, damaged goods and so terribly stupid that we can be persuaded to have a quick abortion by wicked charities. When we could be what? Wombs to provide babies for "proper couples" or go it alone as the root of all evil: single mothers?

This is nauseating. A vote of conscience? If MPs had one they would say it is not the business of the legislature to control women's reproduction. They would stop telling us what is "emotive" and ask what actually is. I didn't want counselling in order to have an abortion. I certainly did after a miscarriage – again an awfully common experience – but none was offered. No, instead let's bring on an army of "independent" zealots who can tell us that abortion leads to cancer, mental health issues and infertility, and sod the evidence that having a baby is more risky than having an abortion. Anyone who talks about how easy it is and how the reality is glossed over is ignorant. You have a scan. You know and see what you are doing. It's not a walk in the park but it is a huge relief. The emotive part is the enforced waiting.

Now the tactics are to further that wait. This is nothing short of cruelty dressed up in the language of concern.

As Field and all his cronies are so concerned about my reproductive cycle, I am happy to give them my gynaecological CV. Abortions! Miscarriages! Natural childbirth! Caesareans! He and his fellow legislators can pore over it with their expertise, right? Their laws are important. My body isn't.

For they have learned their lessons from America. As the public do not support an outright ban on abortion they will fiddle at the edges on time limits and counselling. In states such as South Dakota, pregnancy "help centres" have been set up where counselling means being lectured by unqualified, faith–based volunteers who are resolutely anti-abortion. Make no mistake, counselling is the route by which access to abortion is limited.

This smokescreen of language is worthy of George Orwell's Newspeak. In the guise of impartial advice, the opposite will be offered. As illiberal as these times are, even Cameron is backing away, finally.

All fundamentalisms seek to control female sexuality. It's the same old game. Get your rosaries off my ovaries, as we used to say. You trust me with a child but not with a choice? If MPs want to help women then they can make access to abortion and contraception more efficient. Who has the authority over my body – some geezer in the House of Commons? Or me and my doctor?

Like my mother, I feel no shame and I refute this language of "care".

You want a definition of a nanny state?

How about one that thinks it's OK to poke around in your uterus?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/abortion-counselling

#Dorries praises Graeme Archer BUT what do the extremist's who are backing Nadine think of homosexuality ?

http://blog.dorries.org/

#Dorries: Graeme Archer, as you say you are GAY so BUTT out this does not and will NOT ever be a problem for you .

The MP Nadine Dorries at her home in mid-Bedfordshire  Photo: JOHN ROBERTSON

By Graeme Archer

8:11PM BST 02 Sep 2011

185 Comments

Nadine Dorries and Frank Field, the Tory MP for mid-Bedfordshire and the Labour MP for Birkenhead, plan to move an amendment to the Government’s health reform Bill. This would ensure that pregnant women who seek a termination can have access to counselling and advice that is “independent” of the providers of the procedure itself. Predictably, all hell has broken loose. I put “independent” in quotation marks, deliberately, because it is that word that is contentious, and that word – and not abortion – I want to talk about.

Termination is a topic I normally avoid. Mainly, I refrain from stating an opinion because I’m a very happily civilly-partnered gay man, meaning that there are no circumstances in which I could be directly involved in a decision concerning a pregnancy. Wittgenstein’s quote seems apt: whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. (Would that some people with strong views on my own life obeyed the same dictum.) It is not that I don’t have a strong opinion, or cannot make up my mind. But any theoretical argument I could advance to support my view would be just that – theoretical. Not that of a real person facing the real decision. And so I hold back.

Strangely enough, this reticent disinterest (not indifference) is exactly what is desired by both Ms Dorries and her political opponents. Ms Dorries makes the point that there is a potential conflict of interest in having the same organisation provide counselling and receive payment for carrying out the post-counselling procedure.

Her opponents fear that these independent counsellors whom Ms Dorries foresees in these independent clinics will bring their own dogmatic prejudice, and dissuade more women from either proceeding, or seeking help in the first place. Both sides make valid points.

Which raises the question: who is a disinterested observer? Liberals think they know the answer to that question: disinterested policy-making arises solely from inspection of “evidence”, by which they mean surveys of opinion and experience. Desperate to avoid reference to any religious or even man-made ethical framework for the resolution of political dilemmas (because to admit to such a framework, even implicitly, would turn them into Tories), they have fetishised “evidence” as the ultimate arbiter. As I’ve mentioned before, the belief that an action, or political decision, can be assessed by data alone, free from contaminating personal opinion, is not only seductive, it’s wrong... read more 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8737694/Abortion-reform-listen-to-your-prejudices.html