The Blog of
Nadine Dorries
Smoke & Mirrors
Posted Tuesday, 23 October 2007 at 13:09

I have a letter in the Guardian today  which speaks for itself.

An article in today's Daily Mail mentioned that the Health Minister, Dawn Primarolo MP will tell MPs - in the science and technology committee of which I am a member - that she has seen no scientific evidence to reduce the upper limit at which abortion is available down from 24 weeks.

The article goes on to read "both the BMA and the RCOG are not convinced there is currently a need to change the limit."

It's nice of her to inform the Select Committee of her position, before we have even had a chance to put the questions to her, however, let's have a closer look at the BMA and the RCOG.

The RCOG Committee which drew up the guidelines, that regulate the abortion industry is made up mainly of abortion providers, both on a large and small scale.

For example both the BPAS and Marie Stopes who carry out the lions share of 200,000 abortions per year are advisors to the Committee.

Dr Kate Guthrie, is an advisor – it was she, who when giving evidence to the Science & Technology Select Committee, said speaking with her RCOG hat on, that she saw no evidence to change from 24 weeks – and then said on national TV the following night via the Dispatches programme, that she wouldn’t abort a baby over 20 weeks. When asked was this because it was too much like a baby, she said “I suppose so.”

Militant, pro-abortion groups are also advisors, but in the name of balance, no pro-life groups.
Almost every person on the committee has a vested financial interest in ensuring that the number of abortions which take place in the UK remains amongst the highest in Europe.


I believe that the RCOG may have deliberately attempted to mislead the Science & Technology Committee in its submission.

It failed to mention the Hoekstra study which demonstrates how with good neonatal intervention, 66% of all babies (that is babies born naturally because there may have been medical complications not healthy babies aborted) at 23 weeks live.

It failed to mention how in the UK at good neonatal units such as UCH London and Hope hospital in Salford, 43% of 23 weekers live.

Instead it chose to quote a study which averages out births at all hospitals across the UK, which puts the figure at 10 -15%.

The RCOG also failed to quote any papers linking abortion to pre-term delivery which had been published after 2003 and completely ignored the recent peer reviewed acclaimed study into foetal pain produced by Dr Anand.

The RCOG also went foolishly further than this and have in a very childish way claimed they are not aware of Dr Anand on their web page. 

Dr Anand is the world's authority on foetal pain - it was his work at Oxford in the 1980’s which resulted in all neonates being given anaesthesia for general surgery today. Until he produced his work it was thought that neonates could not feel pain, by measuring stress hormones he proved otherwise. Dr Anand has been published world wide.

The RCOG web site stating that they are unaware of Dr Anand is the equivalent of a group of mathematicians asking “who is Einstein?”

Will the Minister quote the RCOG in her answers to the Committee tomorrow? I wonder.

Maybe she will quote the BMA.

Lets take the BMA, the organisation which voted at its conference to support the move to require only one doctor's signature for an abortion to be performed, not two. Thereby making abortion easier and faster and less tedious from an administrative perspective for the abortionist. 

At the BMA conference motions are put to the floor to be spoken to and then voted upon. There is a time limit. Motion one on the order paper, obvioulsy,  is always spoken to and voted upon. Motion two may get a hearing. If one and two are popular then there is little chance of three getting through.

At the BMA conference the first three motions were pro-abortion motions.

There was a backlash petition from 950 BMA doctors signed on the web following this.

So will she quote the BMA who somehow manage to work it so that only a pro-abortion motion could be voted on, I wonder.

Let's hope the Minister will come to the Select Committee with an open mind tomorrow. Lets hope she will realise that the whole purpose of the Committee is to gather and present the evidence to government in order to inform the government's position, not the other way around.

Let's hope her officials got carried away, because if they didn’t, and if the Minister really has made up her mind, surely now the question has to be, what is the point of the Select Committee?

Anonymous said:
Responded: Tuesday, 23 October 2007
But all your references to survival rates at 20/22/24 weeks are meaningless because you want to restrict abortion to far earlier times. If you are going to campaign on this issue, you have to have a SINGLE manifesto on the way forward. The reason we can ignore your pleading is because you will not reach an accommodation for the next ten years with pro-choice people who may prefer a lower limit. You have played right into our hands by allowing yourself to be painted as a salami slicer who will be back for another cut tomorrow, and the day after until the reasonable wishes of the majority of women are at risk.
Sweeper said:
Responded: Tuesday, 23 October 2007
Having just looked up Dawn Primarolo (allegedly known as Red Dawn,later dubbed Rosy Pink) on one of the 'know your MP' sites where they give their voting records, etc, I quote "She remains committed to feminist issues,especially the liberalisation of abortion law". Oh dear,Nadine, methinks the lady's mind will not be that 'open' somehow.
Debbie said:
Responded: Tuesday, 23 October 2007
Where is it Sweeper? I can't find it.
Matt said:
Responded: Tuesday, 23 October 2007
But surely this is a case of supreme hypocrisy from you! You criticise Dawn Primarolo for putting her views across before she meets the committee yet you have told all and sundry what your views on the subject are. I understand you hold strong personal views on this subject but I was under the impression that you represented all of your constituents views not just some. You have chosen to ignore any evidence put before you. You have already made your mind up! You are the person who has decided to use the phrase “Pro-Abortion” rather than “Pro-Life” in some childish game of name calling. You are an MP, start acting like one!
Nadine said:
Responded: Tuesday, 23 October 2007
I am not a minister matt - I don't make government policy, Dawn does.
Sweeper said:
Responded: Tuesday, 23 October 2007
It's on the BBC News- Politics- website,and gives her profile. A bit out of date (what isn't on the BBC!) when she was in the Treasury. Different but same photo(as in Spectator) of Dawn-if you know what I mean-has this lady nothing to smile about(?),at least with Nadine you know she has still got all her own teeth:-)
Sarah said:
Responded: Tuesday, 23 October 2007
wow a very interesting expose. this is of course a highly charged issue and you are doing a fantastic job to highlight some of the biases that are ultimately to the detriment of women. You would expect there to be balance in the advisers to such an important committee, surely this undermines the whole process?
Vera Drake said:
Responded: Tuesday, 23 October 2007
Nadine, You may not think abortion is the most wonderful thing in the world. Neither is prostitution. Both have been around for thousands of years. Rather than castigating it, surely the response of all right thinking individuals is for it to happen with the least harm to the women concerned.
Anonymous said:
Responded: Tuesday, 23 October 2007
That's a very large cross you're wearing in the picture you've chosen to publish over and over again. Are we to understand your opinions are motivated by religious doctrine? In which case the first commenter was correct - you are a "salami slicer who will be back for another cut tomorrow, and the day after until the reasonable wishes of the majority of women are at risk"
akiv said:
Responded: Tuesday, 23 October 2007
Fight on Nadine, don't let the buggers get away with it. Anonymous, how many people do you think approve of disecting living babies in the womb to kill them? No 'reasonable' person could find that reasonable.
Stuart Fairney said:
Responded: Wednesday, 24 October 2007
I am correct in saying that there have been cases where extremely premature babies have survived after just 22 weeks gestation? If this is so, it beggars belief that we still allow abortion at 24 weeks. Would I be right in saying that the extremely premature baby, aborted at 24 weeks, far from being given the vital medical care it needs, is simply tossed in the incinerator? I hate to use emotive language in this context but this is simply allowing a baby to die by neglect. Can it be right that we seem concerned about the human rights of convicted murderers but not those of innocent babies ?
Adrian Yalland said:
Responded: Wednesday, 24 October 2007
Nadine, well done for putting your head above the parapet on this. You deserve commendation for the stance you have taken. Many people support you - even those who say they support the right to have an abortion.
Letters From A Tory said:
Responded: Thursday, 25 October 2007
Thankfully they reached some very sensible conclusions yesterday about liberalising the laws. I'm sure some people will disagree with that, but on the (perhaps large) assumption that sufficient information and support is given to mothers, these new guidelines make sense.
Contact Nadine
Nadine Dorries MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
via e-mail at:
or Telephone on 020 7219 5928

My Recent Posts
Posted Tuesday, 10 September 2019 at 09:47
Posted Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 19:05
Posted Wednesday, 17 July 2019 at 10:39
Posted Thursday, 4 July 2019 at 09:54
Posted Wednesday, 3 July 2019 at 14:22
Posted Thursday, 16 May 2019 at 06:27
Posted Wednesday, 3 April 2019 at 12:40
Posted Wednesday, 13 March 2019 at 12:42
Blog Roll
Conservative Home

Dizzy Thinks

Guido Fawkes


Iain Dale

Spectator Coffee House

Political Betting

Politics Home

John Redwood

Dan Hannan

Douglas Carswell


Blog Archive