Tag: Nadine Dorries

Additional Thoughts on the Defeat of a Proposal to Change Abortion Counseling in England

Leave a comment

By Dave Andrusko On Wednesday I wrote about a overwhelming defeat of a proposal in the British Parliament which (as TIME magazine wrote on one its blogs) “attempted to divorce abortion counseling from abortion providers”. I claim no expertise, but as a very interested outsider who has followed the proposal by avowed pro-choicer Nadine Dorries, …

Continue reading "Additional Thoughts on the Defeat of a Proposal to Change Abortion Counseling in England" →

The Guardian Newspaper and Censorship

Leave a comment

Editor’s note. The following was posted prior to the debate in Parliament on a proposal to ease abortion providers out of the business of “counseling” the very same women whose abortions they would profit from. The amendment by MP Nadine Dorries failed (referred to in the post as Dorries/Field). But the issues raised by Peter …

Continue reading "The Guardian Newspaper and Censorship" →

British Parliament Handily Defeats Proposal to Change Abortion Counseling

Leave a comment

By Dave Andrusko The British Parliament overwhelmingly defeated a proposal today that would have prevented abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) from counseling women. Tory MP Nadine Dorries’ proposal, which failed 368 to 118, would disallow organizations which have “any financial interest in providing for the termination of …

Continue reading "British Parliament Handily Defeats Proposal to Change Abortion Counseling" →

Pregnancy counselling and the Dorries/Field amendment

Leave a comment

Editor’s note. This is a very long post, but an important one. It was written today by John Smeaton, executive director of the British Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC). There is a great deal of confusion and controversy over the pregnancy counselling amendment to the health bill (Health and Social Care Bill) …

Continue reading "Pregnancy counselling and the Dorries/Field amendment" →