I think one of the signs of this is with her use of the opinion poll above, where she took a poll that actually supported quite tough restrictions on abortion (to <20 weeks, although I would dispute the polls motives and methodology since it was by Christian activists), and “sanitised” it to claim that the support was for 20 weeks.

Nadine seems to be a focal point for the religious right (who contrary to an earlier commenter’s views are actually getting quite influential here) to try and push several different views into parliament, ranging from religious freedom laws to abortion to equality for homosexuals. In each case, she seems to act as the sort of thin end of a wedge, presenting slightly moderated versions of their agenda in a form that makes them palatable enough to gain a toe-hold in the Commons.

@Shatterface : “Still, medical concerns aside, abortion is a moral matter and not something which will be decided in the laboratory. ”

On abortion and morality. The committee inquiry covered by Ben Goldacre and referred to by Martin in this article was a scientific matter not moral. It was about lowering time limits for abortion and whether scientific advancements had made the case for this. The case was not made and much of the ‘evidence’ provided which claimed to show a scientific basis for lowering the limits actually came from religiously-funded organisations. Of course at Westminster those giving evidence did not have to declare their religious affiliation but luckily they were exposed here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/15/sciencenews.medicineandhealth

Abortion is not just a moral matter, although I acknowledge that given the strength of feeling in society ‘morality’ should be considered. Instead, it is a public health issue. Approx. 67,000 deaths of women occur globally every year due to unsafe abortion. In Nicaragua where abortion is outlawed in all circumstances, health professionals have suffered the chilling effect where they are too scared to even perform routine gynaecological examinations in case they are charged with abortion. Nicaragua has been taken to the UN Committee against Torture on the basis of their abortion laws amounting to torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment: http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/nicaragua-complete-ban-abortion-violates-torture-convention-20090515

So yes, if you consider torture a moral matter than the denial of safe and legal abortion services is also a moral matter.

But also pleased don’t be fooled. She is not using the scientific arguments rather than moral ones because she’s stupid (which of course she is but that’s another matter). This is a tactic used very successfully in the US – to chip away at the right to abortion by increment. Lowering time limits, reducing services, enforcing health professionals read out ‘warnings’ to women before a termination, ‘cooling off’ periods, parental consent, arguing against the licensing of drugs for chemical terminations with the regulators – all of these mount up to a restriction of rights and access to healthcare for women. And they are all being made by religiously motivated zealots.

I don’t think the UK will ever go the way of the US on the abortion issue, but there are definitely those out there that want the same debate started over here and have tried repeatedly to use the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill to do it. And its not gone away…