Bodies

I've just received a letter from Frank Dobson, Patricia Hewitt and Christine McCafferty about some amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which is due back in the Commons on Monday for its report stage and Third Reading.

At the Committee stage, some of which was heard on the floor of the House so as to allow for free votes, there was an attempt to reduce the abortion time limit, which failed. Now those who opposed reducing the time limit are putting forward amendments which will remove the "clinically unnecessary restrictions which cause delay in abortions". (I'm quoting from their letter).

The new clauses are:
- to allow an abortion if a doctor certifies that the pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week
- to permit suitably trained nurses and midwives to carry out certain abortions
- to allow abortions to take place in primary care premises
- to allow women to choose to be at home to complete the last stage of early medical abortion
- to require anti-abortion organisations to make clear they do not offer abortion services or neutral counselling

Not all these amendments will necessarily be selected for debate; that's up to the Speaker and partly depends on what other amendments have been submitted. There will presumably be free votes everything.

The first new clause is probably the most controversial. It removes the need for 2 medical practitioners to consent to a woman having a termination. This will no doubt lead to accusations that we're allowing 'abortion on demand'. The truth is, however, that the current restrictions don't stop women getting abortions; they just make it difficult, humiliating and more stressful for them to do so. If you want to check out all the amendments you can look at the Public Bill Committee pages - and then click on Amendment Papers and Proceedings. Other amendments worth noting: Nadine Dorries is calling again for a reduction to 20 weeks, and Edward Leigh wants to make women to have "a seven-day cooling-off period" and counselling before they go ahead with a termination (which I think implies they're being a bit emotional and irrational when they first make the decision, doesn't it?).

Evan Harris and John Bercow have also tabled amendments along similar lines. Nadine Dorries says on her blog "I would have thought that it would be hard to beat Evan Harris in his evangelical pursuit of gynaecological blood sports" and then goes to to imply that John Bercow has. Bercow also attracts flak on Conservative Home.

There are also amendments on the substantive issues in the bill - i.e. fertilisation treatment and embryology - but I think these will be overshadowed by the abortion debate.

Voting tonight

Have just got back from the Chamber, sitting in on some of the debate about the abortion time limit. We start voting at 10.11 and there could be as many as 10 votes, which would take us up to nearly 1am. (I had to get up at 5.45am today, after about 5 hours sleep; this is not good). Listened to Nadine Dorries' speech. Some of it was undeniably moving, when she talked about her experience as a nurse assisting with botched late terminations, conjuring up an image of holding a baby in her arms as it gasped for breath and then died. It would be quite easy to be swayed by such emotive arguments.

But we all believe it would be better if there were far fewer abortions carried out, far fewer late terminations, far fewer unwanted pregnancies in the first place. None of us regards it as a casual decision, a mere technical procedure... I was going to say more, but Anne Widdecombe is being very shrill and I'm having trouble concentrating. And the first vote is about to happen.

The 20 or 24 week limit debate

Interesting exchange of views between two Tory MPs over the abortion time limit, which the Commons is voting on tomorrow. Mark Pritchard emailed all MPs, drawing their attention to a Sunday Telegraph article from a doctor who refuses to perform late abortions. (I can't find the article on the ST site now, and it's too long to reproduce in full). This provoked the following response from Robert Key, which is interesting in that it puts the case for retaining the 24 week limit from a Christian viewpoint.

Hello, Mark. Yes – I saw this piece. But what’s your point, please? In terms of the debate on the upper limit for termination of pregnancy, the views of Dr Argent are no more significant than your views or mine. I could quote the Gynaecologist I met last week who performs late abortions, or the woman with three children with whom I discussed her decision to have a late abortion. As it happens, I do have strong religious views (Christian) and one abortion is one too many for me and I want very much indeed to reduce the tragically high number of abortions in our country – over 90% of which take place in the first twelve weeks. As a Christian I do not see it as virtuous to punish or take revenge on the women who face late abortions – for that is how it looks to a great many of them. Why take it out on the women who face the most difficult decisions in the most vulnerable circumstances? As one clinician put it to me last week, “many of these women are like a train crash – everything in their lives has gone wrong at once”. Or do you think we should punish those “wicked gals” who play fast and loose with their bodies and need to be forced to have their babies come what may? Fast and loose at 20 weeks? Get real, Mark!

So as a Christian, I wish to do all I can to prevent unwanted pregnancies – proper sex and responsibility education in schools, not just the approximate mechanics of sex. Plus adequate, workable provision of contraceptive and health education resources instead of the patchy teaching in our schools today. Oh, and by the way, who is most likely to be opposed to sex education in schools? The same people that want to lower the upper limit on abortion!

As a Conservative, I object to the State telling a woman (or a man) what she may or may not do with her sexuality. I notice neither you nor Dr Argent make any mention of the responsibility of the men who cause the women to get pregnant. No state intervention necessary for us, then! Whatever a Member of Parliament, a Minister, or a clinician may think about abortion, the very bottom line is that it is an individual human being, made in God’s image, who happens to be a woman, who must decide whether or not to continue with her pregnancy. In the interests of the foetus and in the public interest the State may surely take a view, based on the evidence, of where to draw a line. But that view should certainly not be taken, as Dr Argent argues, on the level of personal revulsion (surely shared by most of us) at what is a comparatively rare procedure. Fair comment, but not a reliable moral or ethical guide.

Finally, if we are trading the merits or otherwise of newspaper articles, I prefer Simon Jenkins in The Sunday Times. “For the most part MPs should stop meddling in how people choose to plan and protect their families. They have enough trouble with their own”.

Good wishes from Robert.

Scientists versus moralists?

The Second Reading debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill yesterday was very high quality; as the cliche goes, Parliament is at its best on occasions like this. Brian Iddon and Ian Gibson were particularly good on the benefits of allowing scientific research on admixed embryos. Someone - possibly Brian or Ian - said that they strongly objected to the debate being characterised as being between those who supported scientific progress and those who had 'ethical' concerns. They said, quite rightly I believe, that support for the scientists is also very much an ethical position, as it is based on the strongly-held belief that we should be doing what we can to reduce human suffering and to find cures for terminal or chronic diseases. Indeed, some might say that it is unethical for people of strong religious belief to deny others the opportunity to benefit from such scientific progress because it conflicts with their own deeply-held faith. From what I heard of the debate yesterday, a number of MPs questioned whether the research would be of real scientific benefit, but everyone who did so was speaking from a strongly Christian perspective, rather than from a scientific viewpoint. (For perhaps the most extreme example of this, Iris Robinson's contribution is worth a look).

Life begins at...?

Tomorrow - or, rather, later today (why am I still up?) - we have the Second Reading of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, with free votes the following week on some of the crucial issues. Having belatedly realised what the time is (3am!), I won't say too much about it now, but it's going to be an interesting week.

For the record, I'm with the scientists on the 'admixed embryos' issue; support the removal of the 'need for a father' provision re IVF treatment (replaced by a reference to parenting); and don't support the reduction of the abortion time limit from 24 to 20 weeks (and will probably say more on that before the week is out). The latter isn't actually in the Bill, but will be introduced by way of amendment. There's also likely to be an amendment removing the requirement for two doctors to give permission before a woman can have a termination, which I'll be backing if it comes to a vote.

It's at moments like this that it becomes apparent just how many Catholics there are within the Labour ranks; it's the Celtic thing I suppose. Most people assume I'm a lapsed Catholic, but I was actually brought up as a Baptist, or at least was packed off to Sunday school every week along with my sisters so my mother could get some peace and quiet. (I'm writing that because I know she'll be reading this - hi Mum!)

The dividing line on the abortion issue - and also on admixed or hybrid embryos - very much depends on whether you believe life starts at conception or at birth (or at least when life would be sustainable outside the womb). Not sure that's something that will be resolved by the political debate we'll be having over the next few weeks, but I suppose there must be some undecideds amongst us.