Thu 17th Apr 2014 | Last updated: Wed 16th Apr 2014 at 19:02pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Pro-lifers should be wary of mandatory counselling before abortion

It might sound like a good thing but it is not as straightforward as one might think

By on Wednesday, 30 March 2011

Pro-lifers protest against abortion outside the Houses of Parliament (Stefan Rousseau/PA Wire)

Pro-lifers protest against abortion outside the Houses of Parliament (Stefan Rousseau/PA Wire)

I have blogged about abortion before; it is hard to avoid the subject. When I do, there is invariably a post in reply that tells me how smug my views are in the light of the abortion this person had to have for medical reasons and which has caused anguish ever since. I am deeply sorry for their experience – but I still maintain that abortion is never the solution to a social or medical predicament. Indeed, it is the opposite.

The subject is on my radar again because when I was driving my disabled daughter to her day centre yesterday I turned on the car radio. It was Woman’s Hour and Jane Garvey, the host, was interviewing Nadine Dorries MP and Ann Furedi, chief executive of BPAS (formerly the British Pregnancy Advisory Service). Dorries, along with Frank Field MP, is pushing for an amendment to the forthcoming Health and Social Care Bill which would transfer responsibility for drawing up clinical guidelines on abortion from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) to Nice (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence).

Nice is accountable to Parliament; the RCOG isn’t. Furthermore, as Dorries has pointed out elsewhere, of the 18 members of the RCOG who have drawn up the draft guidelines, 11 are identifiable as abortionists; thus they have a vested interest. Not surprisingly, the RCOG declined to take part in the programme.

Dorries and Furedi argued politely but there is clearly no love lost between them. Dorries challenged the kind of counselling that Furedi says BPAS gives to vulnerable women, given that the abortion industry generates an income of £60 million a year. Another vested interest? In its mission statement BPAS says, “We support reproductive choice by advocating and providing high quality, affordable service to prevent or end unwanted pregnancy with contraception or by abortion.” Quite so. It tells its clients that “If you are considering abortion it’s important to know that you’re not alone. One in three women in Britain will have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old.” Quite so.

Although Dorries and Furedi have different perspectives, it must be pointed out that Dorries is not pro-life. She supports “a woman’s right to choose”; she simply wants such a choice to be properly informed. In another amendment to the Bill she and Frank Field have pushed to create a new precondition for any woman having an abortion to receive advice and counselling from an organisation that does not itself carry out abortions.

Some pro-life campaigners are wary of this, for good reason. It would establish a condition to be met in order to qualify for an abortion. What information would be given to women? Who would give it? If counselling were required, some sort of certification would also be required. If pro-life groups were to give this counselling they would have to issue certificates. This was the very situation in Germany with Church groups who got involved. In 1998 and 1999 the late pope, John Paul II, wrote to the German bishops instructing them to stop Church counselling services from issuing certificates that could then be used to obtain an abortion. Mandatory counselling might sound a good thing but it is not as straightforward as one might think.

  • http://ccfather.blogspot.com/ Ben Trovato

    If you are as widely read as you say, you will know that all your arguments have been answered by far greater minds than mine.

    Finally, as the great Blessed John Henry Newman said, we may choose to believe whatever we want to believe – but we are responsible for what we choose to believe.

    For myself, I believe in the Word of God, in the light of the Tradition and Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

    And my point is, that on a forum like this, to describe yourself as a committed Catholic when you believe as you do, is, to say the least, a little disingenuous.

  • DBMcGinnity

    Disingenuous, Means: Not Genuine.
    You suggest that I am false or fraudulent. You claim to be an honourable Catholic and yet you can pass judgement on me, even thought eight commandment forbids you impugn my integrity. This dynamic is called “Reaction Formation”. Remember Matthew 7: 1-5: “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye”?

    From an early age, I was informed: “Once a Catholic, Always a Catholic” so I am a committed Catholic. Some Sundays I go to two masses (Vernacular and Latin) and I receive Holy Communion twice. I have received six of the seven sacraments and for pragmatic reasons I have not received the seventh, and hopefully never will.

    How strange and how coincidental that I am presently reading “Apologia ProVita Sua” by John Henry Newman. I am reading Appendix B “What, Then, Does Dr. Newman Mean”? regarding the controversy with Charles Kingsley, so. I am very familiar with John Henry’s work. All of his work.

    In the main, nowadays, I am like a four year old child on Christmas Eve night, who has blind faith that Santa Claus will come. No logic or reasoning is required, just blind faith in God. (but not in the cruel, discriminative, bigoted, conditional-love, God of vengeance, hate, threat of punishment that the Catholic Church preaches and still teaches. No thank you! I am going to converse with my cat in the hope of having some sort of rational communication.

  • Anne

    the counselling proposed by Dorries and Field is non-compulsory. The amendment is about simply providing the opportunity for women to have independent counselling that is not provided by an abortion clinic. NHS abortion counselling is currently *only* provided by abortion clinics. The amendment would change this arrangement.