FactCheck: Nadine Dorries steps up abortion row
The claim
“You tell Bpasyou (sic) are usure (sic) what to do and would like to talk to someone and you are told to get on your bike and travel to Richmond because the only hour for a clinic with the largest thru (sic) put of abortions has been taken.”
Nadine Dorries’ blog, Dr Death and the Central London Clinic, 4th September 2011
Cathy Newman checks it out
You can’t fault the vigour with which Nadine Dorries is pursuing her campaign to change abortion advice offered to women in England. But just as truth is often the first casualty of war, so it seems that as the Tory MP steps up her parliamentary offensive, the facts are in danger of being distorted.
At the moment, women who want an abortion are given counselling. Guidelines from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists state that that advice should be impartial and unbiased.
But Ms Dorries says that charities like the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas) can’t guarantee being impartial, because they not only carry out abortions but give women counselling too.
She’s proposed an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill to stop charities doing both. Pro-choice campaigners say that could mean faith groups morally opposed to abortion will have too much influence. We FactChecked Ms Dorries’ claims on this last week and found her wanting. But today she had another go, so we’ve returned to the fray.
The analysis
Nadine Dorries’ latest charge is that the British Pregnancy Advisory Service’s (Bpas) central London clinic only has an hour a week that it dedicates to counselling sessions. And if you can’t make that session at London’s “largest” Bpas clinic, or if it’s booked, you’ll be unceremoniously packed off to their Richmond clinic.
Dorries argues that while medical consultations are widely available, non-medical counselling sessions are not. She told FactCheck that her claims were based on the findings of an investigative newspaper journalist whom she’d spoken to.
In essence, Dorries is right about its central London clinic only offering an hour a week in counselling. Bpas confirmed this to both Dorries’ journalist source and FactCheck. But, there are some crucial facts from Bpas that have been ignored.
And today Bpas hit back at Dorries for what it called “another wilful misrepresentation” of its services. (read last week’s charges here).
Bpas told the investigative journalist in an email: “Our Central London clinic is much smaller with one session reserved for women who request stand-alone pre-abortion counselling a week. Some weeks this is not used at all, but our service is flexible enough to provide more such sessions as and when they are requested, and does so.”
This means that if there’s demand, Bpas will meet it. While the journalist omitted this fact to FactCheck when reading the email out, Bpas forwarded the correspondence.
Bpas has insisted to FactCheck that if the hour’s slot has been taken, it can switch one of its ‘consultation’ slots to a counselling appointment. It also told us that consultations include counselling, and are normally the first stop for women who might then ask for further counselling if needed.
Bpas told FactCheck that last week, there were 67 consultation sessions at the London clinic, but not one counselling session booked in. The clinic, which incidentally is not its largest as Dorries claims, is open 8/8.45am to 5pm Monday – Friday, alongside a late Thursday session and Saturday opening.
Bpas’ central London clinic only treats women who are up to nine weeks pregnant – it is dwarfed by their Richmond and Streatham clinics – which provide services for women up to 24 weeks pregnant.
Richmond, for example, booked in 117 consultations last week. It offers two hourly counselling sessions a day, and of these, while Bpas couldn’t provide exact numbers (as it is now closed for the day) it told us that more than double that number were booked in – proving they are capable of responding to any demand which might arise.
Bpas told us: “We can definitively say that the one hour session is not the only session available, and not the only counselling that takes place.”
Incidently, since FactCheck contacted Dorries this afternoon, she has updated her blog – claiming to have given us the “research” she referred to on Radio 4 – in actual fact anecdotal findings passed to her by an undercover journalist.
Cathy Newman’s verdict
Nadine Dorries has in the past described late abortion as ‘murder’. She speaks with some authority, because as a nurse she assisted in terminations.
And that is precisely what’s motivated her tenacious campaign to restrict abortion rights.
But Ms Dorries does herself a disservice by failing to stick to the facts. A distressed 16 year old who finds herself pregnant would not be sent on her way by Bpas.
To suggest otherwise is a scare story which doesn’t befit an MP, let alone a former nurse.
The analysis by Emma Thelwell
Follow @FactCheck on Twitter


There are 16 comments on this post
Keep up the good work! Regardless of ideology, this should be a debate based on fact.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Just to correct FactCheck (PAY ATTENTION CHANNEL 4!) – Nadine Dorries NEVER assisted with terminations. She NEVER worked as a scrub nurse, and she NEVER worked in obstetrics and gynaecology. Her claims that she did are more great, big, Dorries flavoured lies.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
restrict abortion rights? you believe abortion is and should be a right.
why are you posing as a neutral fact-checker when you clearly have strong views on this
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Where does it say “should be”? It IS a riight under current legislation. This article does not state that this is a good thing; only that using wilful misrepresentation to promote a ligislative change is unbecoming of an MP.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Surely the ‘rights’ reported here are legal rights rather than moral ones? Isn’t the charge here that the amendment would impact on a woman’s rights as they exist in law, and that Dorries is being disingenuous in her arguments?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’ve been told that Nadine Dorries was a nurse for about three years around 30 years ago. Is that worth a fact check?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Nadine Dorries reminds me of ex-smokers who, having given up themselves, feel they have some moral right to expect all others to also give up.
What a terrible woman to want to make an already difficult decision even harder for many women. As for conflict of interest – how many politicians have nice little earners on the side which colour their judgement when it comes to legislation in parliament?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Fact check Marie Stopes advertises for non-directional counsellors but specifies that they must be pro-choice on abortion. sound independent to you? http://www.mariestopes.org.uk/Vacancies/UK/Sessional_Counsellor_-_Manchester.aspx
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@ Eaine:
YES. “Pro-choice” does not mean “thinks every woman should have an abortion”. It means “thinks that the option of abortion should be available and be non-judgemental of women who exercise that option”.
“Pro-life”, on the other hand, means “thinks every woman should be forced to carry every pregnancy to term, regardless of whether they want it, will be harmed by it, or will be able to care for /cope with a baby”.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Choice: an act of choosing between two or more possibilities (OED).
Since being pro-choice means being prepared to respect a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, and to make the right decision for her whatever it might be, it sounds just fine to me. It sounds exactly what an independent and non-directional counselling service should be doing.
Being pro-choice means keeping all options, including both abortion or continued pregnancy, on the table. Anti-choice means trying to make others arrive the decision others think is right for them.
Where exactly is the problem with a counsellor not wishing to restrict a woman’s choice? Isn’t that exactly what is being argued for? Or maybe not…
Trying to claim that Marie Stopes counsellors should be anything other than pro-choice is a spectacularly self-defeating argument.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Thank you SO MUCH for doing this. By exposing Dorries’ lies, you’re doing a great service.
The thing that most sticks in my throat is the pseudo-compassionate language Dorries is using to gussy up her illiberal and misconceived (!) attack on Bpas and Marie Stopes and other abortion providers. It’s so infuriating (which is why she uses it, I am sure).
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Pro-choice campaigners say that could mean faith groups morally opposed to abortion will have too much influence.” Why don’t you fact check this too? And the other wild accusations made by the pro-choice groups. You accuse her of making stuff up to fight her corner, but the ‘other side’ blatantly are too, and they seem very good and throwing mud unfortunately, but no one holds them to account.
Indeed, you conclude your article by saying “And that is precisely what’s motivated her tenacious campaign to restrict abortion rights”, which whilst you may be correct that she’s against it by and large (indeed she’s clearly stated this), by concluding with this you’ve made it sound as though this is the natural conclusion of the amendment.
The fact of the matter is pro-choice groups could provide this independent counselling, and I wouldn’t be surprised if BPAS or Marie Stopes could form a subsidiary that provided counselling off-site and be available to do counselling.
However, I think the pro-choice groups know that, for example, Christian groups have plenty of volunteers who are willing to counsel people and help them, whereas the pro-choice has a dearth and…
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Pro-choice campaigners say that could mean faith groups morally opposed to abortion will have too much influence.”
The key word here is could. The amendment Nadine Dorries proposes only specifies tat they be independent of abortion providers. There is no wording in the amendment that states they must have a position on abortion.
Therefore the amendment as written could be used in this way.
Far too many of the numbers and statements Nadine Dorries comes out with are stretching the truth IMO, I’m surprised such is allowed by an elected representative.
e.g. – her 60,000 fewer abortions under the new system claim she made several times.
http://notjarvisrants.blogspot.com/2011/09/response-to-random-tweet.html
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Has anyone ever noticed the strange but striking overlap between pro-life, and pro-death penalty, supporters?
Heard this Dorries woman on radio, and she sounded inauthentic, to say the least.
Self-serving and cruel ideologues don’t enjoy truth or facts.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
On another matter, can you fact-check Ken Clarke’s statement about the rioters being largely from the “feral underclass”. Not that the figures probably aren’t right, but it seems to me that the police would be able to pick out previous offenders more easily from CCTV footage and also such offenders would get tougher sentences, which was demanded by politicians. I believe this is part of a campaign to minimise the problem beacuse dealing with the wider issues raised by the riots would be too difficult & too expensive
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Did she actually assist in abortions? She was training to be an SEN – they were not actually ever called upon to assist in terminations then – they simply wouldnt have been considered qualified. SENs were not even allowed to give injections….now she’s advising the government on rather complicated health and scientific matters – as a voter, I’m really worried about her level of ignorance advising policy and legislation…..
Like or Dislike:
0
0