This evening I have organised a meeting in Westminster Hall, to present to MPs the important evidence which was excluded from the Science and Technology Select Committee Report on abortion.
Professor Sunny Anand arrived in the UK at midnight on Friday night, to a collective sigh of relief from the staff in my office.
I won’t even begin to tell the story of the effort and organisation required in having his bio-metrics recorded in Geneva en route from America in order to have his Visa processed, so that he could get into the UK to contribute on the panel this evening.
Nope I won’t even begin - the blog’s not big enough!
I also invited Dr Stuart Derbyshire to join the panel, who believes that a foetus can’t feel pain. He didn’t actually send any written evidence to the Science and Technology Committee investigation, yet he was still called as a witness to give evidence. I wonder if that had anything to do with his well known pro-abortion views?
Professor Anand on the other hand, went to great lengths to make the Committee aware of his work and was not called.
Dr Stuart Campbell is also on the panel - Dr Campbell pioneered 4D scanning, giving women the window on the womb they always wished for. Dr Campbell literally shows us how a foetus behaves in the womb; the pictures you see in newspapers of a foetus walking and thumb sucking, are courtesy of Dr Campbell’s work.
Professor Anand is neither pro or anti abortion, but a scientist who simply deals with the facts. The facts unfortunately didn’t fit with the majority pro-abortion view on the Select Committee.
Professor Anand was, however, attacked by Dr Derbyshire in a letter subsequently published in The Times. So I thought, OK then, face to face is far more preferable than letters in a newspaper - if Dr Derbyshire feels so strongly, let’s put him up against Professor Anand on the panel, two competing views.
Dr Derbyshire declined the invitation, claiming the panel would be biased; excuse me? I asked two foetal pain experts, Anand and himself - i.e. two competing views - how is that biased?
I was therefore very surprised to hear Dr Derbyshire on the Today programme this morning with Professor Anand. It was a clear win for Anand, with Derbyshire sounding brittle in the way many pro-abortionists do. I cannot believe for one moment that Derbyshire would ever attempt to debate against Professor Anand in a room full of his own peers.
Professor Anand explained on the Today programme, how likely it is that a foetus can feel pain below 20 weeks. His personal point of view - given that he has no interest in the issue of abortion - is that if an abortion does take place after this stage, it should be done as humanely as possible, as you are ending the life of a feeling sentient being, which is capable of life.
His balanced view when pushed by Naughtie, was that abortion should not take place beyond 20 weeks. Interestingly, Derbyshire, would not mention the number of weeks, but prattled on about sovereignty of the body and rights - in code he was saying that it is a woman’s body and she should be able to abort at any time.
He did concede, that due to the probability of a foetus feeling excruciating pain, the abortion proceedure should happen as fast as possible.
It is set to be a fascinating meeting and I hope as many MPs as possible will attend.
Ms Dorries is quite right when she gives Dr Anand the win on his performance on the Today Programme, but whilst this convinced me further there was a need for a debate on this issue, the Today Programme is only listened to by a relatively small number of people compared with Radio 1 & 2
It is a sad fact that almost everyone in this debate is viewed by the ‘man on the street’ as being, well, slightly odd, both the PROs and ANTIs, which leaves this issue to be discussed by those who have generally already made up their minds. Perhaps if Ms Dorries could get her message across to those who are generally disengaged with politics there might just be a proper debate.
Until then real debate will be restricted to a small number of individuals who feel strongly about the issue and changing the law is unlikely, either way.
I’m not a PRO or ANTI, but I do believe it is right that we should debate this issue and from the compelling arguments put forward by Ms Dorries I would support her view that it is time to lower the limit by 2-4 weeks.
There is of course the issue of whether or not we have an adequate definition of what ‘severally disabled’ means. I read, also in the Mail an interesting article about a campaign by a young priest called Jessop, who is campaigning against the current law being used to abort children with relatively minor cosmetic defects which can be easily corrected with surgery. Her case was equally compelling, but there are those who seem completely against debating both of these issues – What are they afraid of?
I could go on, but Ms Dorries you might know the answer to the following questions which have been troubling me since reading about this issue…
1. The Lib Dem MP Evan Harris who campaigns against any attempt to reduce the current limit, he speaks out in Parliament on this issue and takes part in all the votes. I read that his girlfriend or partner works for the largest provider of abortions in the UK. A friend of mine, who is a local councillor, says that if he had a similar pecuniary interest and this issue was debated at the council he would not be able to take part. SO my first question is how is it right for Dr Harris to sit in judgement, when he has a financial interest in maintaining or even liberalising the current regime?
2. The second question I have is about a group of MPs who receive money from the Emily’s list. I understand that the only commitment they have to give is to be pro-abortion. Am I correct and is it right for them to take part and vote in any debate?
Good luck with your meeting Nadine. Its time to change the law and I think you have hit the nail on the head. Give ‘em hell.
Steve some very interesting points and I hope you get answers to those questions. I come to this debate as a Christian and will simply pose this question is it right for HMG to sanction the murder of nearly 200,000 children every year? There are many lefties who complain about the US and their Government’s use of capital punishment, but set this against the 200,000 innocent live this country takes each year and who looks worse. Perhaps George W. Bush has got it right and we have got it wrong.