Dorries Rides Again

This week, Nadine Dorries MP failed to get a second reading for her amendment proposing that abstinence teaching should be promoted in schools - but only to girls, which I covered here.

But there really is no getting rid of her.

Now the Government has been accused of pushing ahead with her plans to strip abortion providers of their role counselling women despite her amendment on the issue suffering a heavy defeat in the Commons last year.

MPs voted by a majority of 250 to reject the Dorries amendment in September. It was intended to make women to see ‘independent’ counsellors before they have an abortion rather than be advised by abortion providers like Marie Stopes International or the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.

Public health minister Anne Milton said just before the vote that the Government would try to implement the spirit of Dorries' proposal without the need for legislation. She said: "The Government supports the spirit of the amendments, and we intend to present proposals for regulations after consultation."

It now appears that this is exactly what has happened. It's almost enough to make you believe in Dorries' god.

Shadow public health minister Diane Abbott said she had walked out of a new cross-party abortion group set up by the Government to look at the issue of counselling following the defeat. She said: "I now believe the 'consultation' will be a front for driving through the anti-choice lobbyists' preferred option without legislation or a debate on the floor of the House."

The group has been considering three proposals:
:
The first would see abortion clinics, such as those run by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) and Marie Stopes International, barred from providing counselling, and under a legal duty to refer women seeking it to an 'independent' service.

An second option is for voluntary registration. This would would mean any organisation offering counselling to women with a crisis pregnancy would have to meet minimum standards, and only use appropriately-trained counsellors.

The third option is to retain the current system.

As I wrote at the time, allegedly independent bodies of the kind promoted by Ms Dorries do in fact have a strong religious agenda and use a wide variety of manipulative, emotive and factually wrong tactics to talk women out of having abortions. I also wrote about how Ms Dorries manipulated facts in support of the amendment. Which is putting it politely.

For anyone who may have forgotten, this is the same Nadine Dorries who is on record as saying that her political blog is "70% fiction and 30% fact" and that "I have chosen the facts I wish to believe".

It's easy to dismiss her as someone with little influence who is easily ignored but her persistence and the apparent support of at least some parts of Government mean that she can't be ignored by anyone who cares about choice and women's rights. She really is the wasp at the picnic.

UPDATED 27 JANUARY
On Newsnight last night, Dorries and Abbott faced off. Abbott's performance was less than sparkling. Dorries made a few interesting points.

1. No abortion counsellor should have an agenda.

In theory, yes. But her idea of having an agenda is being paid by the state to do abortions, You might as well say that NHS dentists shouldn't be allowed to do fillings because they have a financial incentive. The film clip before the discussion showed so-called independent advisors with a strong religious agenda to put women off having abortions. She didn't address this.

2.Dorries says that counselling would mean 60,000 fewer abortions a year.

Her Government wants to cut Child Benefit. How does she envisage providing for these extra children? She has said this before but it's not clear where the figure comes from.

3. University-educated, middle class women who live in London are fine, they know what they want and where to get it. She is concerned for the 'vulnerable' others.

This implies that women who don't fall into her very narrow category are incapable of knowing their own minds or of dealing with what she calls a 'crisis pregnancy'. And, referring back to point 2, it would seem that there are at least 60,000 of them.

4. Dorries listed Frank Field as a pro-choice MP.
He backed her amendment so the choice he is pro would appear to be hers.

The Government says there will be a public consultation before any decision is made, possibly launched next month.

40 Days of Treats

The anti-abortion group 40 Days For Life are back outside the offices of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (bpas) in London.

They are saying Hail Marys, displaying models of foetuses and handing out leaflets. This time there is a counter-campaign. Instead of setting up a rival protest or taking on the demonstrators, which could make things even more difficult for women who go to bpas, Carmen d'Cruz and Liz Lutgendorf decided to ignore them completely and focus on the bpas staff. They've organised 40 Days Of Treats for the staff who have to deal with the protesters being outside every day. The plan is for every day the protesters are there, they will take the staff a little treat to show support for them and for the right to choose.

I went in to the bpas offices in Bedford Square, London WC1 today and took them strawberries. I figured that if everyone else is taking them cakes and snacks it might be a good idea to take a healthy treat - we don't want to kill them with kindness.

The leaflet being handed out by the protesters says 'You can stop injustice' on the cover, along with words like homelessness, racism, sexual trafficking and poverty. What's inside has nothing to do with any of this. It's the usual collection of highly emotive language and images plus misinformation of the kind Nadine Dorries is no stranger to.

It talks about the 'preborn' - in the same way that eggs, flour, fat and sugar are precake, perhaps. There is also the usual list of Terrible Things that will happen if you have an abortion, both physical and psychological, along with gory descriptions of abortions. Along the way there is also a quick shot at stem cell research.

The leaflet has an article associating abortion with eugenics and denies that the world is over-populated. This focuses on falling birth-rates in Europe and says that 'far from rapaciously expending resources, developed societies have consistently figured out ways to make fewer resources stretch further'. The fact that this is partly by exploiting the third world where overpopulation, famine and disease are still rife isn't mentioned. The warning about falling European birth rates reads like an alarmist call to repopulate Europe by banning abortion.

They are also against abortion after rape and incest which, they say, makes everything worse for everyone concerned. There's a promo for pre-marital abstinence and lifelong monogamy too.

The logic of many of their arguments defies analysis. They quote 'scientific evidence' that has been repeatedly debunked and give only the skimpiest of sources.

As just one example, the source for 'women who abort are 144% more likely to physically abuse their children' is given only as Acta Pediatrica 2005. This is a monthly journal so that's hardly being transparent. They claim that there are full citations on their London website but if they are there then they're so well hidden even their search facility can't find them.

You can read the research paper here. It's a study of mostly black, low-income women in Baltimore. Its conclusions are 'However, counter to expectations, maternal history of induced abortion was not linked with enhanced risk for neglect after the effects of a number of variables associated with neglect were controlled' and 'the data were gathered in only one geographical locale and the study adopted a retrospective methodology that relied primarily on self-report assessments, which could compromise the integrity of the data gathered as well as the generalizability of the findings. A final limitation pertains to how the abuse and neglect cases were selected'.

This is pretty typical of the way anti-abortion groups misuse research and statistics, as I've written about several times before.

Anyway, on to happier and more cake-based matters.




If you want to join Carmen (left) and Liz (right), the campaign runs until November 6. You can follow 40 Days of Treats on Twitter @40daysoftreats and read the blog for updates. The plan is to spread the campaign to bpas offices in other parts of the UK so you don't have to be in London to join in.

Dorries - Weebles Wobble But They Don't Fall Down

MPs have rejected Nadine Dorries’ bid to change the law on abortion counselling for women by 368 votes to 118.

During the debate, Dorries continued to use discredited ‘facts’, unsubstantiated anecdotes and emotional statements, brushing off challenges from MPs who are also doctors and might be presumed to know what they're talking about.

She portrayed herself as a valiant David struggling alone against the well-funded Goliath of the left-wing media and Abortion Rights. At one point, she even claimed ‘I’m broke’. She allowed interventions from as many supporters as she could, some of them vehemently anti-abortion, despite claiming that she isn't and that the debate wasn't about abortion in principle. She also still persistently denied that any knowledge of how Right To Know are funded.

At one point, Dorries bemoaned the fact that she had lost Cameron's initial support for her amendments. She blamed Dr Evan Harris, saying that he is blackmailing the Prime Minister and the Government. At this point, there was uproar in the House. It will be interesting to see if she dares to repeat this potential libel outside the safety of parliamentary privilege. Stewart Jackson MP described Julian Huppert MP as 'Dr Evan Harris' vicar on earth'. Evan will now grow a moustache to twirl in a fiendish way, with any luck.

She didn't stand unchallenged, however. There were MPs who spoke strongly against her and Diane Abbott said 'this is a shoddy, ill-conceived attempt to present non-facts... the opposite of evidence-based policy making'. So it's not just men who oppose you, Nadine.

Julian Huppert pointed out that the current system works well and that what is needed to reduce abortion numbers is better access to contraception and better SRE (sex education) for both boys and girls. It's not known if Evan was hiding under the seat with his hand up Huppert's back at that point although it might be worth asking Huppert so say 'bottle of beer' as a test.

Health Minister Ann Milton ended the 90 minute debate, commenting ‘the amendments won't work for women’. However, she also said that the Government supports the ‘spirit of amendments’; there will be a consultation and another vote in Parliament – so there is yet more work for campaigners to do.

Dorries has claimed that she ‘won the war’ and will continue the fight both for this and for a reduction of the upper time limit on abortions. Like the Terminator, she will be back. Unlike the Terminator, she won't come back reprogrammed as a good guy. She is relentless and, as she has apparently no political ambition, there is little her party can do to restrain her. Expect her tactics to get even more anecdotal, emotive and evidence-free.

She is also still blaming the LibDems, saying on her blog (with no sense of irony) that ‘politics yesterday was certainly at its dirtiest and most complex’.

The amendments were originally tabled by Dorries and Frank Field MP. He pointed out during the debate that his name had somehow been left off them and added that he would not now be supporting her. Field also said 'We should be more concerned with facts, and less concerned with trying to put our sticky fingers into other people’s souls and pronouncing that they have failed'.

He asked Dorries to drop the amendments but she refused so the House divided.

Members voting in support included Cabinet Ministers Iain Duncan Smith, Liam Fox and Owen Paterson while George Osborne, Nick Clegg, both Milibands, William Hague, Ed Balls and Ken Clarke voted against the amendment. David Cameron was not present. You can read the full division list to see how your MP voted here.

One effect of the anti-abortion lobby is that the other side fall over themselves to say they are not pro-abortion but pro-choice. No one wants to be heard saying abortion is a good thing. But why not? It's not an easy thing, it's not anyone's ambition to have one but, if you need one, it's the only choice. For me, it's a good thing that abortion exists, that it's legal, affordable, safe and relatively freely available. So in that sense, I am pro-abortion in the same way that I am pro assisted dying.

Nadine Dorries - Fact and Fiction

Nadine Dorries MP wants women to see 'independent' counsellors before they have an abortion, not go to abortion providers like Marie Stopes International or the British Pregnancy Advisory Service because they have (she says) a vested financial interest which she compares with pension mis-selling. She is proposing an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill on September 6th to ensure this happens, along with Frank Field MP.

She is also on record saying that her political blog is '70% fiction and 30% fact... I rely heavily on poetic licence'.

Let's take a look at her being poetry in motion.

Research by Education For Choice has found that 'independent' is a word that belongs in Dorries' 70% category. And her comments about the 'financial interests' of BPAS and others are based on about as much evidence. [ETA] On Newsnight last night, Dr Evan Harris pointed out that the Department of Health’s own website warns against independent advisers.

Dorries is being backed by the Right To Know campaign. Despite describing this as 'our campaign', she now says 'I have no idea how they're funded'. She's also being poetic about their motivations, saying 'They may be ideologically driven'.

She has said that abortions are currently done before women have time to think what they're doing. Does she really mean this? Has she thought through the implications of saying that women are incapable of making their own rational decisions? Be careful you don't get distracted by thinking about shoes or you might accidentally have an abortion.

Then she claimed that Dr Evan Harris 'lost it' on an interview with Sky TV - an interview which she refused to share with him, insisting on being recorded separately. In it, Evan pointed out yet more flaws in her argument. It's not obvious what he he lost. His bus pass, possibly.

Dorries is being advised by the Christian Medical Fellowship, whose own interesting relationship with the truth I've already covered, for example here. So not only are her words 70% fiction, she is also consorting with fictionalists (I've made that word up because I'm bored of calling them LIARS).

The Right To Know campaign are bandying about the 'fact' that 30% of women who have abortions go on to suffer mental health problems. This claim is based on a paper from the British Journal of Psychiatry. The paper's conclusion is, quite reasonably, that abortion is not without consequences for some women.

However, the paper also states ‘The evidence is consistent with the view that abortion may be associated with a small increase in risk of mental disorders’. That's may be. It also states that ‘the overall effects of abortion on mental health proved to be small’ and could be the result of ‘uncontrolled residual confounding’. This means there could have been other factors influencing the results that they failed to rule out. That's being honest because it's an academic paper not a work of fiction.

Most tellingly, the conclusion says: ‘Specifically, the results do not support strong pro-life positions that abortion has large and devastating effects on the mental health of women’.

So that's another bunch of fictionalists she's consorting with.

She claims that the number of abortions would be reduced by 60,000 a year if women had independent counselling. Presumably she arrived at this figure by thinking of a number and then adding a load of noughts as there is no evidence to back it up. Her story-telling stops at this point rather than considering what might happen to these 60,000 babies in terms of supporting both them and their parents. For her, the happy ending is a full-term pregnancy. In this respect, she's close to the Catholic Church's position.

Dorries wants us to go back to being a Christian nation with Christian values. But the ruling classes' relationship with these values has always been a marriage of convenience, using them to justify or condemn whatever and whenever it suited them. Moreover, 'Christian Britain' is a nostalgic idyll for a time and place that existed alongside the land of the Care Bears and belongs in the 70% of words put together in a sentence that look like they might be true but in fact aren't. Besides, back in the days of Yore when we were at least nominally a Christian nation, the only people who really benefited were upper middle class white men - much like the ones who still dominate the House of Lords and the Tory party.

The latest from Dorries is this gem 'I wonder why someone would provide a quote to a national newspaper when they obviously have no idea what they are talking about?' I'm not even going to go there.

She has also said 'I have chosen the 'fact' I wish to believe'. That would be the fact that is 70% fiction, presumably.

It's almost too easy to take her arguments apart. When her bill amendment was first raised, many people said it was nothing to worry about, it would disappear and pro-choice campaigners were getting worked up about nothing. But now it looks like the Government could turn her fictions into fact, which means that no one will live happily ever after.

There's a good analysis of the almost total lack of evidence for changing the current abortion counselling position on the Nothing Special blog.

Next time will be less of a tirade, honest.

UPDATE 1 September 2011: The Government has done a U turn on abortion counselling but the free vote could still go either way next week. This means that MPs can vote according to their conscience rather than the party line.

UPDATE 2 September 2011: It's gone up from 30% to 'twice as likely' to suffer mental health problems post-abortion. She's done a loaves and fishes job on the stats.

Pro-choice groups are supporting an amendment by the Libdem MP Julian Huppert:

All organisations offering information or advice in relation to unplanned pregnancy choices must follow current evidence-based guidance produced by a professional medical organisation specified by the secretary of state.

Always Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide? Part 3

Should students be accepted for medical school if they have no intention of treating certain people or conditions?

A survey shows that a significant number of medical students think doctors should be able to refuse any procedure that contradicts their beliefs. The procedure that causes the most contention is, as always, abortion.

Not all of the respondents were religious; non-religious students thought opt-outs should be a right too - 35% thought there was a place for conscientious objection. The survey also found a prevelance among the religious to object to certain procedures and patients.

In general, support for a doctor's right to refuse any procedure that troubles their beliefs was highest among Muslim medical students at 76.2% while 54.5% of Jewish students thought the same, as did 51.2% of Protestants and 46.3% of Catholics.

More than double the number of Muslim students than non-believers would refuse an abortion when contraception failed. A higher percentage of Muslim students than others would object to prescribing contraception. Nearly eight percent of them also stated they would object to ‘intimately examining a person of the opposite sex’. The survey didn't ask how students would feel about examining LGBT people which, along with not exploring the reasons for objections in the non-religious, is a limitation.

Doctors opting out of treating certain patients is only part of the problem. Some students are refusing even to learn certain areas of medicine in the first place.

It was reported in the Sunday Times four years ago that some Muslim medical students were refusing to attend lectures or answer exam questions on alcohol-related or sexually transmitted diseases because they claimed it offended their religious beliefs. This was corroborated by both the BMA and the GMC. Professor Peter Rubin, chairman of the GMC’s education committee, said: “prejudicing treatment on the grounds of patients’ gender or their responsibility for their condition would run counter to the most basic principles of ethical medical practice”.

GMC guidelines recognise the right of freedom of expression for medical students but state that this 'cannot compromise the fundamental purpose of the medical course: to train doctors who have the core knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour that are necessary at graduation'.

The GMC also specifically states that a foundation level doctor cannot practise while refusing to examine patients on grounds of gender or those patients whose illness can be attributed to their lifestyle. Guidance drawn up by the GMC advises doctors to refer a patient to a colleague if they object to a certain procedure or treatment. They must also give patients enough information so they can seek treatment elsewhere within the NHS. In some situations, doctors' consciences can (and should) be accommodated but the foundation level doctor is often the first one to see acute patients and any delay in treatment could have serious implications.

The research paper on the survey concluded that ‘Once qualified as doctors, if all these respondents acted on their conscience and refused to perform certain procedures, it may become impossible for conscientious objectors to be accommodated in medicine’. It also states that ‘The views of large numbers of Muslim students are contrary to GMC guidelines, and thus the medical profession needs to think about how it will deal with the conflict’.

Although Muslim students are clearly a growing problem, Muslims are not the only ones to object to certain procedures. The Christian Medical Fellowship, which has 4000 members, is also strongly anti-abortion, for example. Almost a third of the students surveyed wouldn’t perform an abortion for a congenitally malformed foetus after 24 weeks, a quarter wouldn’t for failed contraception before 24 weeks and a fifth wouldn’t even perform an abortion on a minor who had been raped.

Some of the reporting of this survey has gone straight to worse-case scenario and ignored the finding that a lower percentage of students would refuse to carry out a procedure than actually objected to it. However, the percentages are still significant and the situation needs to be addressed while respondents are still students. If the number of medical students prepared to carry out a termination when they qualify is shrinking, then women will find it hard to access abortion safely and quickly in the future.The UK may be drifting towards the situation in Italy where nearly 70% of gynaecologists refuse to perform abortions and 50% of anaesthetists refuse to assist on moral grounds even though abortion is legal.

While the GMC is holding out against students' right to pick and choose what they learn, the question remains - why do people want to become doctors if they are only going to treat certain patients or conditions, and where do they think they will practice this limited form of medicine? It's not just women's needs that are taking second place to beliefs; the provision of universal healthcare is being challenged too. Perhaps medical students need to be triaged when they apply to colleges and clearer limits set on the conscience to make sure that patients' needs always come first.

I wrote a response to the GMC consultation on conscience opt-outs for the National Secular Society some time ago.

In Part 1 I looked at the affect on women of pharmacists being able to opt out of selling emergency contraception if it's against their beliefs. I also wrote a consultation response for the NSS on this subject. It's not just in the UK where conscience is becoming a problem. In Part 2 I looked at the debate in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on doctors' opt-outs.

Update 3 August 2011
In related news, a Christian midwife is refusing to wear trousers because Deuteronomy 22:5 says that it's wrong to wear the clothes of the opposite sex. Trousers are part of the uniform for hygiene purposes and the hospital is so far sticking to its guns saying that wearing them is 'proportionate'. Let's hope she never wears clothes of mixed fibres and doesn't have pierced ears.

Barking Up The Wrong Tree

I was taught at school always to read the question before answering an exam. Basic, really.

In 2009, the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) ran a consultation on changing the rules for advertising Post Conception Advice Services (PCAS). I wrote a response for the National Secular Society, sent it off and waited to see what happened.

The new rules would allow more PCAS to advertise and would also ensure that adverts were not misleading about the services they offered - principally whether they would refer a woman for abortion or not (some can't if they're run by nurses and some won't if they're Pro-Life). There were certain restrictions about when adverts could be run - not close to children's programmes, for example.

BCAP were well aware that adverts might cause offence to some people who have a moral or religious objection to abortion but considered there were strong public health grounds to justify showing them and that the 'specific consumer interest in question is that of pregnant women'. It took into account the fact that 'these are legally available services offering a range of advice and that providers should be permitted an appropriate level of freedom of expression to advertise'. it also stated that 'offence taken by some members of the audience is not in itself sufficient reason to prohibit a particular category of advertising'.

I wondered why there had been no results of the consultation published.

This week, we got an email from BCAP saying they were running the consultation again.

The new consultation notes explain that the 2009 consultation resulted in 27,000 responses from people stating they were offended by the proposals, mostly on religious or moral grounds. However, 'most respondents appeared to have misunderstood what was being proposed' and 'few respondents commented on the specific question of whether it is appropriate to allow a broader range of PCAS (including commercial services) to advertise and whether it is sensible to require services that do not refer for termination to say so'.

27,000 is an awful lot of 'offended' people. So offended that they didn't bother to read the questions properly. Or maybe they did and just wanted to have a rant anyway.

Some of these responses were:

* BCAP's proposal will encourage promiscuity among young people and divorce sex from mature relationships.

* BCAP's proposal will promote abortion as a means of birth control.

* BCAP's proposals are in conflict with the Audio Visual Media Services principle that audiovisual commercial communications shall not cause moral detriment to minors.

* Abortion providers mislead women into thinking that abortion is a quick-fix solution to a problem pregnancy with no harmful consequences.

The consultation notes also say - 'you need only write a second time should you feel that your understanding of the proposal has changed'.

This is a polite way of saying - rant as much as you like, we'll still ignore you. Maybe it will make a difference, maybe they will get another 27,000 misguided rants. The NSS response does not need to be submitted again.

If you believe abortion is wrong for moral or religious reasons, that's your prerogative, as is saying so publicly. Replying to a consultation that exists only in your head is neither persuasive nor productive. All you achieve by barking up the wrong tree is frightening the squirrels. Don't be surprised if they throw nuts at you.

If you want to respond to this public consultation, it's here.

I'll be attending the Pro-Choice rally next Saturday.

Choose Life

A look at the latest round of anti-abortion campaigns

For some reason, Christian anti-abortion groups have chosen the 43rd anniversary of the Abortion Act to launch their latest campaign.

Christian Concern's Choose Life campaign includes adverts on London buses that feature a foetus, a vigil outside Parliament, a national Service of Lament led by former Bishop of Rochester Nazir-Ali and screening an American documentary about what they call the 'abortion industry', showing 'the devestating effects abortion has on women'. Presumably, the people who chose the slogan have never seen Trainspotting.

Christian Concern (CC) said that 'For too long abortion has been a taboo subject, a situation that only compounds the problems that abortion brings. It is time for society to face up to the hidden scale and consequences of abortion'.

It's ironic then, that Christian groups objected to a recent TV advert by Marie Stopes attempting to make the subject less taboo.

Catholic groups are supporting CC even though polls have shown that the majority of UK Catholics support a woman's right to abortion and contraception.

Not given to subtle tactics, CC likes big numbers: 'MPs and Lords who voted in the 1967 Act never imagined that within four decades seven million babies would have been aborted, or that the reasons for abortion would have been so relaxed over the years'. They like emotive language too. A tiny ball of cells is a long way off being a baby.

They have also commissioned a poll by ComRes.

The poll asks:
1. How many abortions do you estimate take place in Britain each year?

Only 3% of the 1000 respondents were roughly in the right area. It's not clear whether they were told how their responses would be used.

2. In fact, according to Government figures just over 200,000 abortions took place in Britain last year. Which if these statements best sums up your view on this statistic?
It is too high and ways should be found to reduce it
It is a reasonable number and no action needs to be taken to reduce it
Don't know
Two thirds (66%) of respondents thought it was too high.

They're right, it is too high. There is no supplementary question to find out whether people thought this for moral, religious or other reasons, which allows CC to interpret the results any way they like. Pro-choice supporters would say that the solution lies in education, contraception and unbiased open discussion. The Government is currently reviewing SRE (sex education); a government poll has found that 90% of parents are in favour of children being taught about contraception although 80% of teachers don't feel equipped to teach SRE well. So one way to reduce the abortion rate would seem to be to train teachers better to equip young women to avoid unwanted pregnancy.

Religious group Family and Youth Concern are objecting to the poll because it was backed by Durex, claiming that Durex has a vested interest. It's entirely possible that they do but FYC have interests of their own: 'young people do not need to be presented with a menu of sexual options from which they can make ‘informed choices’. Rather, the whole issue needs to be approached with honesty, modesty and within a clear moral framework that shows a proper respect for parents and for marriage.' Their interest is to promote sex only within marriage and only for 'childbearing'. Condoms reduce unwanted pregnancies, not abstinence and preaching.

Back to the poll. Education is not one of the options it offers. It continues (Warning - the dice are loaded):

3.Would you support or oppose each of these possible changes to the law on abortion?
A compulsory cooling off period between diagnosis of pregnancy and abortion, to ensure a mother is sure of her decision
78% of respondents supported this proposal.

A cooling off period would mean prolonging the suffering of many women and their partners, increasing health risks (if it's compulsory) and it also assumes that women have abortions on a whim. A cooling off period would also give pro-life advocates longer to work on the women. The use of the word 'mothers' is emotive and makes their intentions clear - a woman is a 'mother' from the moment of conception. However, around one in four pregnancies miscarry naturally, many in the first few weeks when the woman doesn't even know she is pregnant.

A woman's right, enshrined in law, to be informed of all the physical, psychological and emotional risks associated with abortion
89% of respondents supported this.

A legal duty on doctors to provide access to advice and information about alternatives to abortion, such as adoption.
82% supported this.

Of course women should be given all the options, presented in an even-handed, unbiased way, as well as being told about any consequences but only the real consequences, not the made-up, morally loaded, manipulative ones (I'll get to those in a moment).

4. Would you support or oppose each of these possible changes to the law on abortion?
A reduction in the number of weeks' pregnancy at which an abortion can be conducted, which currently is 24 weeks or just under six months, to a limit of 20 weeks or less.
61% agreed with the reduction.

This is what the questionnaire has been leading up to. CC want to reduce the number of abortions not by helping women (and their partners) to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place but by making it much harder for them to have an abortion when they do. The questionnaire does not inform the respondents how many abortions currently happen after 20 weeks so that they could make an informed choice about their response. In 2007, 89% of terminations happened before 13 weeks. In 2005, only 1.3% happened between 20 and 24 weeks. So CC's campaign to reduce the limit would have very little effect on the figures, which makes their poll little more than emotive propaganda.

Foetal viability was examined by the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology in 2007. Foetal viability means survival of foetuses who are alive at variable times during the pregnancy or the capability of surviving the neonatal period and growing up into an adult. The Committee concluded that:

'While survival rates at 24 weeks and over have improved they have not done so below that gestational point. Put another way, we have seen no good evidence to suggest that foetal viability has improved significantly since the abortion time limit was last set, and seen some good evidence to suggest that it has not.'

This conclusion is shared by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

A spokesperson from Marie Stopes International told me: "Having an unplanned pregnancy is often a very difficult experience for a woman and her partner. At Marie Stopes International we provide couples with non-judgemental information about all their options to ensure women can make the right decision for them."

It's not like Marie Stopes and similar clinics are forcing abortions on women or that doctors are pushing them as the easy option. They are pro-choice, which means that any choice a woman makes is supported, not just the forced so-called choice that CC are promoting.

The spokesperson added: “Fortunately, in Britain, women have access to safe abortion care unlike in many developing countries where abortion remains illegal and complications from backyard abortions claim the lives of tens of thousands of women each year and leave more than two million women with lasting health problems.

“Encouragingly public support remains exceptionally high for the right to access safe abortion care with a recent YouGov survey finding that less than 9 per cent of people opposed the right to an abortion.

“We are working hard to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies by educating women about more reliable contraception methods such as the implant and IUD and provide them with access to contraception.”

With less than 9% opposing abortion, Christian Concern are not representing the moral majority or protecting millions of morally feeble women from themselves. They are yet another vocal religious minority group.

It's not just Christian Concern who are ramping up their campaigning. American-style protests are also becoming more common in the UK. A Texas-based group called 40 Days For Life has been holding protests outside Marie Stopes clinics in London. The campaigners are planning to hold 40 days of protest in the US, Australia, Denmark, Canada and Northern Ireland as well as the UK.

Some of the leaflets they are handing out to women outside the clinics warn about an increased risk of breast cancer following abortion. This is an old favourite of pro-lifers. As I wrote in July last year for example, the Christian Medical Fellowship (CMF) have long spread this lie.

There has also been increased activity in Europe by pro-life lobbyists, for example in scuppering the McCafferty report recommending that doctors' conscientious objection to abortion (among other things) should not be upheld at the price of women's health and well-being.

Tory MP Therese Coffey has tabled an early day motion that would force women who want an abortion on mental health grounds to get counselling and be warned of risks to their mental health. The psychological toll of abortion is another favourite of the pro-life campaigners. The CMF are also keen on the fact that abortion makes you mentally ill - even though the 'evidence' they cite says the complete opposite of what they claim.

CC and others like this two-pronged attack: abortion kills babies and threatens women's sanity and health. They're not much bothered about the effect of unwanted children on women's health.

In Northern Ireland, pro-choice campaigners at the first all-Ireland conference on abortion and clinical practice have called for the laws to be modernised. NI is the only part of the UK where abortion is still illegal. Protesters were of course out in force, led by a group called Precious Life.

One consequence of abortion being illegal in the Republic is that abortifacients are increasingly being illegally imported, despite the health risks of self-administering.

UPDATE: A Vatican official has said that voting for a pro-choice political candidate can never be morally justified.

Religious pressure is not going to stop women having abortions. Yes, there are too many at the moment. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. The solution will be found in education, not indoctrination.

One bit of good news is that Education For Choice has launched the A Word Campaign to help educate young people so they can make an informed choice about abortion and contraception. They say: 'EFC believes that young people should not be lied to. School should be a place where they can learn to recognise the difference between values and evidence and to avoid conflating opinion and fact, sermons and science.'

Finally, in America, one couple going to an abortion clinic fought back against protesters and filmed the encounter.

Always let your conscience be your guide? Part 2

On October 7 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe debated 'Women's access to lawful medical care'. The main concern was doctors' conscientious objection affecting women's access to abortion and family planning (including contraception and fertility treatment).

While recognising the right of individuals to follow their (usually religious) conscience, the debate and planned resolution happened because of a growing concern about the increasing and largely unregulated practice of refusing abortions. The intention was to get members states to introduce clear and comprehensive regulations. It did not go to plan.

In the majority of member states, there is little or no effective regulation in this area. The draft resolution proposed that only individuals should be allowed to opt out, not public or state institutions - hospitals and clinics. It also proposed that objecting doctors must give women full and unbiased information about all the options and refer them to a practitioner who would give them the procedure with the absolute minimum of delay. In emergencies or where there was no other doctor/clinic to refer women to, then the doctors should set aside their beliefs, put the patient's welfare first and carry out the procedure.

Under international human rights law, member states have a duty to ensure that healthcare providers' exercise of conscientious objection does not harm the health and rights of their patients.

Before the debate, Rapporteur Christine McCafferty prepared a report on the current situation in Europe. The report called for all medical personnel to state in advance any objections and a register of objectors to be established (as is currently the case in Norway).

Then the pro-life religious lobby weighed in. The resolution as adopted was so watered down that the religious lobby hailed it as a victory. The provisional Resolution 1763, re-titled 'The right to conscientious objection in lawful medical care' now begins: No person, hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion, the performance of a human miscarriage, or euthanasia or any act which could cause the death of a human foetus or embryo, for any reason.

It effectively gives primacy to conscience.

However, it was not quite the whitewash they are claiming as the vote was won by 56 votes to 51.

Sophia Kuby, a pro-life advocate and head of the group European Dignity Watch that lobbied hard against the McCafferty Report, said the vote “is a victory for common sense and for freedom” and “a great victory for Europe. Europe has made clear tonight that freedom of conscience constitutes a pillar of a democratic society that needs to be defended, at times also against a radical minority that wishes to limit freedom and impose a unique pro-abortion thinking in Europe. It is a great sign of hope that a majority has clearly voted against a radical pro-abortion, anti-freedom, anti-diversity lobby that tries to establish unhealthy and suffocating legislation.”

Not freedom for women but freedom for believers. Diversity is hardly well served if only certain people or organisations benefit. And it's ironic that the word 'healthy' was used when it's women's reproductive health under threat. It's not clear in what way lobbying to protect women's legal right to abortion is 'unique'. The McCafferty report did not for one minute suggest that doctors could not object, just that the situation should be regulated to protect both conscience and health needs. There was no promotion of abortion.

Gregor Puppinck, the director of the European Centre for Law and Justice (a Christian organisation), commented: "The Council of Europe reaffirms the fundamental value of human conscience, and of liberty in the face of attempts at ideological manipulation of science and of medicine. Independence of science and of medicine is also an essential value at the heart of democracies."

It's not clear how routinely putting religious conscience before women's rights makes science and medicine independent. Puppinck fails to see that he is trying to manipulate medicine to suit his own ideology. He also cites the Nuremberg trials, implicitly comparing pro-choice groups with Nazis.

Putting a doctor's beliefs always and inevitably before a patient's needs creates a hierarchy of values and rights.

The women most likely to be affected are those in remote or rural areas where it's hard to get to another doctor or hospital, often because there is no public or cheap transport, women on low incomes who cannot afford to travel long distances or go private, young women still living at home who may not want their parents to know and other vulnerable groups like women with learning difficulties. Unwanted teenage pregnancies can ruin young women's education prospects and cause social stigma both for her and the child.

Other risks include raised maternal mortality rates, the increase of unsafe and illegal abortions and an increase in HIV/AIDS and other STIs where practitioners refuse to supply information about contraception or condoms. It's not just women who suffer; their partners and children also suffer if the woman's health is affected, a family that cannot afford a child (or another child) will be pushed further into hardship and couples can be denied fertility treatments. It's not clear how some - if not all - doctors would explain their conscientious objections to patients without expressing personal judgement. Not every patient in a vulnerable condition would feel able to complain or stand up to such a response.

The European Centre for Law and Justice developed out of the American version, founded by evangelical Christians, but they are not the only religious influence at work. The Catholic Church is also, not surprisingly, involved.

I wrote about two of the more extreme versions of Catholic influence in May - in the US a nun was excommunicated for allowing a life-saving abortion in the hospital where she worked and last year there was the case of an abortion given to a nine year old Brazilian girl pregnant with twins after being raped, allegedly by her stepfather. The doctor, the medical team and the child's mother were excommunicated by Archbishop Don Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of Recife who said that "A graver act than rape is abortion, to eliminate an innocent life". The child was not excommunicated because she was a minor.

British organisations also lobbied against the McCafferty Report. Anthony Ozimic from one of them, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) said, in characteristic emotive style, “This evening witnessed an incredible victory for the right of staff in medical institutions to refuse to be complicit in the killing of unborn children and other unethical practices."

McCafferty's report includes examples of the current situation and of how conscience clauses are being abused. In Croatia, for example, it is reported that doctors refuse abortions but then offer them privately - and charge for them. In Italy, nearly 70% of gynaecologists refuse to perform abortions on moral grounds and 50% of anaesthetists refuse to assist even though abortion is legal. In Slovakia and Poland, conscience clauses are often abused by top management who have unwritten policies banning abortions or sterilisations throughout the hospital whatever the rest of the staff think. There is a detailed report on how Slovakia is falling in with Vatican policy here. Another tactic is delaying so that the pregnancy goes beyond the legal limit for abortion.

It's not just Catholic countries where religious conscience is imposed to the detriment of women. In the UK in 2003, a High Court judgement found a doctor negligent for failing to give proper advice to a woman about her raised risk of having a baby with Down's Syndrome because he was a devout Catholic. Also in the UK, religious groups lobbied against a TV advert for the private Marie Stopes clinics as I reported in May.

The doctrine that religious groups attempt to impose on reproductive rights is not even supported by the majority of believers in some countries. In the UK, for example, seven out of ten Catholics support abortion and nine in ten support contraception.

The resolution has to be ratified by the Committee of Ministers, who include William Hague, before it becomes formal policy. His email address is haguew@parliament.uk should you want to write to him urging him not to pass this resolution as it stands. Conscientious objection can also affect other areas such as end of life choices.

The full Parliamentary Assembly document is here.



Part 1 was about conscience opt-out for pharmacists dispensing emergency contraception (morning after pill).

Foetus Jesus

With only 199 shopping days left before Christmas, the churches have already planned their festive ad campaign, a scan of baby Jesus in the womb, complete with halo.

It was created by advertising executives from ChurchAds.net, a consortium of churches including the Church of England, Methodist, Baptist and United Reform churches, but not the Catholics. Some of Britain's top award winning ad execs and designers work for them for free.

Frances Goodwin of ChurchAds said: 'This is the kind of thing proud parents-to-be show their friends and family. Our poster reflects this new way of announcing the news of a new arrival and places the birth of Christ in an ultra-contemporary setting. It offers a fresh perspective on the birth of Christ - creating anticipation and alluding to both his humanity and divinity'.

And to his serious spookiness. Without the message at the bottom, this could easily be a poster for a horror movie. Come to think of it, it still could be.

The poster will be widely displayed, including at bus stops, which might not win it much approval from the parents of small children if they have to explain what it is and how a baby gets into the womb. They might also have to explain to more scientifically-minded children how a halo could show up in a scan where ultrasound bounces off solid objects. Smart kids may not be satisfied with the answer 'it's a miracle' and may wonder how Holy Mary feels about having a large hula hoop in her womb.

A more serious consequence of the campaign is that anti-abortion groups are seeing it as a great opportunity to spread their message. The director of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child said: "This advertisement sends a powerful message to everyone in Britain where 570 babies are killed every day in the womb, 365 days a year, under the Abortion Act. Whenever we kill an unborn child in an abortion, we are killing Jesus".

Killing Jesus - that's not at all emotive. And not that effective for non-believers and followers of other religions. SPUC can't even get their facts straight. The latest official figures from the Deparment of Health are 518 abortions a day. This may not make a huge difference but is symptomatic of their rather casual relationship with facts.

Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society commented: "I hope that the Church of England isn't trying to use its Christmas poster campaign to make a political point. If that's the intention, we may have questions to ask at the Charity Commission".

Even if the churches are not deliberately using the posters to comment on abortion, they really should be aware of how groups like SPUC will hijack their campaign. After the first ever ad for an abortion advisory service on TV recently, pro-lifers will be looking for any way to hit back.

The posters won't go up until December 6th but will be available to buy online. A previous Christmas poster showed the Holy Family at a bus stop instead of in a stable and the 1999 Easter campaign had a really lame version of the Che Guevara poster.

Are You Late? - the Catholic Version

After the fuss made by various pro-life and religious groups about the advert for Marie Stopes International on Channel 4 that I wrote about here, I've picked a couple of religious reactions to specific cases of abortion to take a rational look at.

Sister Margaret McBride is a nun, senior administrator and member of the ethics board at St Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix, Arizona. A 27 year old woman who was 11 weeks pregnant and already had four children, was admitted to the hospital with pulmonary hypertension and told by doctors that if she carried on with the pregnancy, the risk to her life was almost certainly 100%.

Sister McBride met with the woman and with doctors and decided that this case was an exception to Catholic health care directives. She gave the go-ahead, the abortion was performed and the woman survived.

The woman, Sister McBride and every other Catholic involved in either the decision or the procedure was then excommunicated by Bishop Thomas J Olmstead. McBride was also re-assigned to 'lesser duties'.

In a Q&A statement, the Diocese of Phoenix said:

What can be done when a pregnant woman's life is in danger?

The underlying condition should be treated.

If the baby cannot survive outside the womb and the mother may die, isn't it better to save at least one life?

First, we have to remember that a physician cannot be 100% sure that a mother would die. Second, the mother's life cannot be preferred over the child's. It is not better that the mother live the rest of her existence having had her child killed.

Why was Sr McBride excommunicated?

Since she gave her consent and encouraged an abortion she automatically excommunicated herself from the Church.

Does that mean that all women who have had an abortion are excommunicated?

Yes, anyone who has had an abortion is automatically excommunicated. But so are those who encouraged the abortion, helped pay for the abortion, or performed the abortion, including those who directly assisted in its performance.

What is the purpose of excommunication?

The purpose is to repair scandal, to restore justice and to reform the offender. It is a scandal to the entire Church that a woman religious [a nun] would consent to and encourage an abortion. It is also a scandal that a Catholic Hospital would perform such a reprehensible act.

Is anything more required of a woman religious who has been excommunicated by participating in an abortion?

Canon Law requires that a member of a religious community be dismissed from religious life unless their superior decides that dismissal is not completely necessary.

Is St Joseph's Hospital in danger of losing their endorsement from Bishop Olmsted?

These realities are a scandal to the faithful and must cease if CHW wishes to maintain recognition as a Catholic institution in the Diocese of Phoenix.

Another example:

Last year, a nine year old Brazilian girl was pregnant with twins after being raped, allegedly by her stepfather. The authorities said that the abuse started when she was six. The doctor, the medical team and the child's mother were excommunicated by Archbishop Don Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of Recife. He said that "A graver act than rape is abortion, to eliminate an innocent life".

The child was not excommunicated because she was a minor. Sobrinho explained that "The church is benevolent when it comes to minors".

Finally, in Canada, Cardinal Ouellet said that the crime of rape should not be compounded by another crime, that of abortion.

These stories have all caused strong reactions in the media. Should we be surprised? Is this a rational response? These are three men just doing their job, saying what they have been hired to say, following the company line. They have done nothing inconsistent or unexpected. While the nun was humane and undoubtedly aware of the consequences of her decision, she was effectively willfully breaking her employment contract.

The fable of the scorpion and the frog comes to mind. A scorpion asks a frog to carry him across a river. The frog is afraid, but the scorpion reassures him that if he stung the frog, he would drown as well. The frog agrees and half way across the river, the scorpion stings him, and they both start to sink. When the frog asks why, the scorpion says "I'm a scorpion, it's my nature."

The Catholic Church is a competitive, hierarchical and deeply conservative organisation. Anyone with ambition is not going to speak out against company policy if he wants to rise up the ranks. While a parish priest with no ambition or talent for politics can turn a blind eye, any careerist cleric will follow what the men higher up the hierarchy say and do while waiting for a chance to replace them (if it is God's will, of course...). You don't get to be Pope by rocking the boat when it comes to issues like sexuality and female reproduction.

It is not rational to expect them to act otherwise. All the evidence from the past points to them behaving like this again. It's kind of a reproducible experiment.

The news is not that the Catholic Church, yet again, has done exactly what it says on the tin, but that Sister McBride put humanity before dogma.

In case this seems like an isolated case, one in six hospital beds in the US is in a Catholic institution.

Are you late?

Marie Stopes International have launched a new campaign called Are You Late?, part of which is an advert that will be shown on Channel 4 at 10.10pm on 24 May 2010 and then throughout June. This will be the first ever advert for pregnancy and abortion advisory services on TV.

The advert and the campaign were set up after research showed that only 42% of adults in the UK know where to get specialist advice other than from their GP.

The campaign aims to give information about services and also to encourage people to discuss abortion more openly. One in three women have one. In 2008, 215,975 were performed in the UK and in 2009, Marie Stopes International performed about one in three of all abortions in England and Wales.

I wrote a submission to BCAP for the National Secular Society about the advertising of condoms and advisory services a while ago and also wrote about the Christian Medical Forum's response to the consultation - they were one of the religious groups who tried to stop such adverts happening.

Not surprisingly, pro-life organisations are against the advert. The Society For The Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC) put out a press release saying: 'Allowing abortion to be advertised on TV will lead to more unborn babies being killed and to more women and girls suffering the after-effects of abortion. Abortions ads will trivialise abortion. It is an insult to the hundreds of women hurt by abortion every day. Such ads are offensive and will mislead viewers about the reality of abortion'.

Emotive statements backed up by no evidence whatsoever.

Firstly, the slipperly slope argument is a favourite of groups who want to deny women control over their own lives and sexual health. It's similar to the argument that, if you give young people sex education, it will encourage them to go out and have sex. Or the argument put forward by the Catholic Church in Scotland that if young women are given the potentially life-saving HPV vaccine, this will make them promiscuous. SPUC reason that abortion will be trivialized, presumably meaning that women will start to see it as a form of contraception, which is another old argument, backed up by no evidence

They give no details about how women are hurt by abortion. As to suffering after-effects, research has found that 'the time of greatest distress is likely to be before the abortion. While some women may experience sensations of regret, sadness and guilt after an abortion, the overwhelming responses are relief and happiness'. Pro-life groups may claim to be concerned for women but they always put the tiny ball of cells first, even when a woman's life and well-being is at risk.

Then the press release tries another tactic. It says that 'Abortion is in English law a criminal offence'.

I rang their press officer who quoted me the Offences Against the Person Act, Section 58.

The Offences against the Person Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c.100) consolidated provisions related to offences against the person from a number of earlier statutes into a single Act to simplify the law. It's essentially a revised version of an earlier consolidation Act, the Offences against the Person Act 1828.

Section 58 replaces section 6 of the Offenses Against the Person Act 1837 and says: Abortion by unlawfully administering any poison or noxious thing is an offence.

However, SPUC are forgetting or ignoring or wilfully misrepresenting one thing - the Abortion Act 1967. This is 'An Act to amend and clarify the law relating to termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners'.

In summary, the Act states that a person is not guilty of an offence under the law as long as certain conditions are met, mostly to do with who authorizes and carries out the termination, and where. An abortion carried out by an approved practitioner in a hospital or approved clinic is not against the law. Moreover, 'No offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 shall be committed by a registered medical practitioner who terminates a pregnancy in accordance with the provisions of this Act'.

So when SPUC say that 'Abortion is in English law a criminal offence', they are talking about a law that is 43 years out of date and which is based on a law from nearly 100 years ago. Getting emotive about abortion is par for the course with them and similar groups. But they are also ignoring a law that doesn't suit their prejudices and wilfully misleading the public, not just in a press release that has limited circulation, but also in the media. As a lawyer I know put it, they are "irresponsibly misrepresenting the law". It might be termed a sin of omission. SPUC is claiming that the advert 'will mislead viewers about the reality of abortion' but that is exactly what they are doing.

Dr Ed Mitchell, a GP and member of the Secular Medical Forum, commented: 'Abortion up to 24 weeks pregnancy is legal in English law. Indeed, abortions are paid for by the NHS, who offer counselling to help women make the right choice. The SPUC's statement that such a service is illegal is grotesque, a piece of misinformation affecting women at a vulnerable stage of their lives just when they need unbiased information and help'.

Indeed, if they are right, then thousands of doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals are criminals, and the NHS has institutionalized law-breaking.

It's becoming standard practice for groups or individuals to ignore laws that don't suit them, or to think they are exempt from them, most often because of religious convictions.

There have been several recent examples of attempts to flout the Equality Law relating to non-discrimination against homosexuals ( the Christian B&B owner refusing gay guests, Gary McFarlane the Relate councillor refusing to work with gay couples, Lillian Ladele refusing to conduct civil partnerships for example). And in many cases, when the law finds against them, they claim persecution.

As Lord Justice Laws said of the McFarlane case: "We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion - any belief system - cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens, and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. (...) The conferment of any legal protection of preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however long its culture, is deeply unprincipled."

While not everyone who opposes abortion does so on religious grounds, the vast majority of pro-lifers are religious.

SPUC and other pro-life groups do not represent the majority of the population, They do not even represent the majority of religious people in this country. A YouGov poll in November 2007 showed that 63% of people agreed/ strongly agreed that 'it should be legal for a woman to have an abortion when she has an unwanted pregnancy'. What's more, 58% of self-identified Protestants and 43% of Catholics agreed/strongly agreed with this statement too. The Marie Stopes survey showed that 76% of adults supported showing such adverts at appropriate times.

SPUC and their ilk are also confusing being pro-choice with being pro-abortion. As a spokesman for Marie Stopes said: "We are empowering women to make choices. We believe that women have the right to choose the destiny of their bodies and their lives and we are always client-led. If a woman is clear that she wants an abortion, she is a grown woman who has made up her own mind and we support that. If she is not sure, we will counsel her on all the options, including adoption.

"SPUC's agenda is that they do not want women to have the right to an abortion in any circumstances; they always put the foetus above the woman's rights." As an illustration of what would happen if they got their way, he added: " In parts of the world where abortion is illegal, around 70,000 women die every year from backstreet abortions."

SPUC are trying to stop the advert being shown.

UPDATE 4 AUGUST 2010

Complaints about the ad, mostly by religious groups and individuals, have been rejected by the ASA.

Religion, sex and death - election style

It must be election time. The main parties are parading their religious beliefs in order to court what they imagine to be the faith vote.

Both Cameron and Brown's Easter messages are likely to alienate more people than they attract though - both non-believers and people of other faiths. Gordon Brown said that 'the Christian Church is the conscience of our country' and that the visit of the Pope in the autumn would 'make this a special year for the UK'. I'm not sure what meaning of 'special' he was using.

Cameron's Thought For The Day style homily included: 'No matter what faiths we follow, we can all draw strength from Christ's message of hope, of a new beginning and a promise of a new dawn'. It is to be assumed that he will be drawing strength from other religions, too. Or not.

The Tories have gone further than Labour (so far) in parading their religious credentials. In an interview with the Catholic Herald, Cameron pledged to lower the abortion limit, block assisted dying and allow schools to teach PSHE (sex education) any way they like.

On abortion, he said the limit should be reduced to 20 or 22 weeks, His reason for this is 'the way medical science and technology have developed in the past few decades'. He doesn't go into details and blatantly ignores scientific evidence.

Foetal viability was rigorously examined by the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology in 2007. The Committee concluded that:

'While survival rates at 24 weeks and over have improved they have not done so below that gestational point. Put another way, we have seen no good evidence to suggest that foetal viability has improved significantly since the abortion time limit was last set, and seen some good evidence to suggest that it has not.'

This conclusion is shared by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Foetal viability means survival of foetuses who are alive at variable times during the pregnancy or the capability of surviving the neonatal period and growing up into an adult.

To put this into context, in 2007, 89% of terminations happened before 13 weeks. In 2005, only 1.3% happened between 20 and 24 weeks.

Are Catholics in this country so different from those in America and Australia? 64% of US Catholics disapprove of the statement that abortion is morally wrong in every case and 72% of Catholics in Australia say decisions about abortion should be left to individual women and their doctors. Cameron may well be scuppering himself with all but the most hard-line Catholic voters, let alone with the rest of us.

His argument against assisted dying is that there is a 'line to be drawn between allowing nature to take its course under some incredibly painful circumstances and on the other hand allowing doctors or others (however well-intentioned) to accelerate death. I think it would be wrong to tread over this line, because there are very serious implications for our families, and for our society as a whole'. The biggest danger he sees is 'that terminally ill people may feel pressurized into ending their lives if they feel they've become a burden on loved ones'.

He presents no scientific research, no statistics, no information from countries where assisted dying has long been successfully carried out. He just goes for the scare tactic. He also commits the hoary old mistake of of assuming that nature is good and right. Perhaps he'll remember that when someone close to him needs an organ transplant or cancer treatment. And he seems to have forgotten (or ignored) a poll showing that over 80% of people in the UK are in favour of assisted dying. Never let the facts get in the way of rhetoric.

When it comes to sex education, he thinks that 'schools should be allowed to teach it in a way that's consistent with their beliefs, and parents should be free to decide whether or not their children should take part in these lessons... I'm a big supporter of faith schools'.

He may think this is a vote-catcher but he is putting the health and well-being of the next generation at risk by allowing religious schools to keep them in ignorance or mix facts with faith.

As I wrote about PSHE before, it's hard to see how a school with a strong religious ethos will be able to teach the facts and get its religious message across without these two aims coming into conflict. Children in faith schools are often the most in need of accurate, impartial information as devoutly religious parents are unlikely to be willing or able to give it to them.

Proposed Conservative amendments would strike the requirement from the current PSHE proposals that teaching should 'endeavour to promote equality', 'encourage the acceptance of diversity' and 'emphasise the importance of both rights and responsibilities'. They would mean that schools would not be required to teach PSHE and also allow parents to withdraw pupils of any age.

The danger is that young people have no way of judging the quality of any sex and relationship teaching they do get until it is too late and they fall pregnant or get an STI. And how will young gay people cope in a school whose religion actively disapproves of homosexuality? The irony is that good PSHE would help reduce abortion rates overall and help women face the decision on whether to have a termination in a more informed way, which could reduce the (already small) number who need late ones.

The Tory party's stance on equality wasn't helped when Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary, said that Christian B&B owners should be allowed to turn away gay couples. Hotels should take anyone but Christians should be allowed to say who comes into their homes - even though these homes are businesses for tax and legal purposes like hygiene and health and safety - laws which Christian B&B owners would of course observe because they don't happen to clash with their bigoted beliefs. The law says that services must be provided to everyone without prejudice. Grayling's message appears to say that belief puts you above the law.

It's not just the Tories who are pushing the religious agenda. Religious groups are trying to give the impression that they can deliver masses of voters. In previous elections when parties running on the Christian ticket stood, they failed in no uncertain terms. In the last European election, the Christian Party averaged only 1.6% of the vote, despite having a candidate in every constituency.

A group called Westminster 2010 has made a declaration which includes pledges to

'protect the life of every human being from conception to its natural end and we refuse to comply with any directive that compels us to participate in or facilitate abortion, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, euthanasia or any other activity that involves intentionally taking innocent human life'.

and

'support marriage - the lifelong covenantal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. We believe it is divinely ordained, the only context for sexual intercourse (...) and we refuse to submit to any edict forcing us to equate any other form of sexual partnership with marriage'.

So - no abortion, assisted suicide, embryo-based research, civil union, sex outside marriage or divorce. By refusing 'to submit to any edict' they are partly referring to equality law. That's law passed by Government and approved by the Queen (they're very keen on saying this is a Christian country based on Christian values because the Queen is Head of State and Head of the Church).

This manifesto is signed by five senior clerics, a peer, the chair of the Mission and Public Affairs Committee of the Church of England, the principals of three theological colleges and senior staff of around a dozen Christian associations and campaigning groups. That's a lot of heavy pressure put on MPs, threatening them with lost votes if they don't promote the same values. Blackmail is now apparently part of the democratic process. It should be noted that less than 3% of the population go to Church of England services at Easter, the festival on which the whole religion rests.

No wonder Brown and Cameron are bending over backwards to appease the religious voters. Except that the days of people receiving political guidance from the pulpit are long gone. Very few people now vote on single issues. Voting for a party purely on its stance on abortion, for example, is likely to land you with an MP or party you disagree with on many other issues, like tax, health care or foreign policy.

Not one of these religious messages puts women's and gay rights or health and well-being or personal choice before faith. Not one of them is evidence-based. Not one is even humane. Vote for the Dark Ages.