I’m getting sick of Nadine Dorries MP. Here’s why:-
1. She’s devious. Okay, so she’s an MP and two-faced underhandedness is their stock in trade but she seems particularly bad. She has tabled an amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill that would bring the upper limit for pregnancy terminations down from 24 to 20 weeks.
Fair enough if that’s what she believes it should be. I disagree but in a democracy such things are debated, preferably with each side supporting their views with evidence. However, in a comment following this Spectator article, she says:-
“I do want to go lower than twenty weeks – I would settle for the European average of thirteen weeks but would prefer nine,”
So why did she not put nine weeks as an upper limit in her amendment instead of twenty? Because she knew it would be defeated. You can guarantee that if she succeeds with this amendment she will be back in a couple of years demanding a reduction to eighteen or sixteen weeks.
2. She’s intellectually dishonest. She uses emotive claims of fetus viability to support the reduction to twenty weeks. I presume even she will admit that fetuses are not viable at twenty weeks, yet she is on record as wanting to reduce the limit to nine weeks. Clearly she does not really believe her own viability argument. Hardly surprising that she does not. Of pregnancies miscarried at 23 weeks fewer than one in ten ever leave hospital and many are severely impaired. So not really viable then.
3. She’s a liar. Kira Cochrane, in her article “The End of Choice?” in today’s Guardian g2, points out to Dorries that the British Medical Association, among other organisations, supports the current limit. This apparantly provoked a rant from Dorries in which she claimed that doctors were not given a proper chance to vote for a reduction.
Cochrane contacted the BMA who quoted the following motion from their 2005 conference:-
“This meeting holds that the upper limit for legal abortion should be reduced in the light of new evidence of foetal development and advances in neonatal care.”
The motion was rejected. So the BMA are in fact following their members wishes. I wonder if Dories has consulted her constituents as to their views?
4. She seems to be afraid of debate. She puts contentious views on her blog but does not allow comments. I wonder why?
5. She’s either a hypocrite or colossally ignorant. She professes not to know what feminism is and implies that feminism has not achieved anything. It does not seem to occur to her that if it was not for feminism, she would be ignored. Of course, it was feminists in the 1960s who successfully lobbied for abortion to be legalised. This might explain Dorries’ attitude.