LONDON, U.K., September 8, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Both pro-life and pro-abortion groups say they are relieved that Nadine Dorries’ bill to mandate “independent” counseling for women seeking abortion failed yesterday in the U.K. Parliament. The bill was defeated by a majority of 368 to 118.
Paul Tully, the general secretary of The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) said Dorries’ proposal had a “ laudable aim” but added that “by adopting a ‘pro-choice’ position, Mrs Dorries confused pro-life MPs and maddened pro-abortion ones.”
During the debate Dorries described herself as “pro-choice,” but had said that she was interested in finding ways to reduce the country’s abortion rate.
“It must be wrong that the abortion provider, who is paid to the tune of £60 million to carry out terminations, should also provide the counseling if a woman feels strong or brave enough to ask for it,” she said. “If an organization is paid that much for abortions, where is the incentive to reduce them?”
But SPUC said that the bill, by proposing to take the counseling from abortion clinics and handing it over to the strongly pro-abortion Department of Health, may actually have heralded the beginning of the end for pro-life agencies who currently offer pregnancy counseling.
This concern is heightened, Tully said, by remarks by Anne Milton, Minister of State for public health, who urged MPs to oppose the amendment, while saying that new regulations for abortion counselling would be prepared.
“This bears out the fears expressed before the debate by SPUC that Department of Health officials will be given the opportunity to draft regulations. “ Given the department’s track record of promoting abortion, “We fear that they may now try to ban pro-life agencies offering pregnancy counselling that can help women avoid unwanted abortions,” he said.
The group Abortion Rights, which advocates a woman’s right to choose, also said they were “delighted” by the failed vote, stating that had the amendment passed, it would have “stripped abortion providers of their role in offering impartial advice and counselling to women considering abortion.”
In her blog, a bewildered Nadine Dorries wrote, “I must be the only MP alive who is attacked by pro-life and pro-choice – each saying I peddle the other’s agenda.”
The controversy surrounding the amendment stirred a passionate and often personal debate in the U.K.
One man, who wrote an entry on LabourList, a weblog that supports the Labour Party, lamented about the “choice” his girlfriend once made, “alone” and without his knowledge or the “right kind of help.”
“She had had an abortion,” said the man. “At home later that evening I cried uncontrollably in a way I haven’t done since I was a small child. The pain of knowing she had gone through it alone was unbearable – I felt I’d let her down. In all likeliness we would have gotten married and spent our lives together, but this secret had torn us apart and cast our lives in different directions.”
Reflecting on his painful experience in relation to Dorries’ failed amendment, he remarked that “the general principle of ensuring that counselling, if accepted, is provided by a body with only the woman’s best interests at heart is the right one.”
“I can’t bare (sic) the thought of my ex-girlfriend being put along a conveyer belt, only offered counselling by a private firm that cared more about their bottom line than her welfare. She made her decision and I respect it, but ensuring a woman is offered the right kind of help at a time of emotional distress is something worth fighting for.”