Leaked document: How far does Nadine Dorries want to restrict abortion rights?


9:15 am - April 8th 2011

by Unity    


      Share on Tumblr

A document obtained by myself indicates that Conservative MP Nadine Dorries’ recently launched Right to Know campaign could be part of long-term strategy to secure the complete prohibition of abortion in the UK on any grounds.

Dorries recently put forward two abortion-related amendments to the Government’s Health and Social Care Bill.

The Powerpoint presentation was produced by Dr Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship for the Lawyers Christian Fellowship (LCF) in 2006.

[You can download it from here (PPT file) or view on Google Docs]

It advocates pursuing a long-term strategy of seeking chip away at the UK’s existing abortion laws. Its ultimate aim is to obtain the outright prohibition of abortion in any circumstances, including rape, foetal abnormality and serious risk to the life of pregnant women.

It lists possible answers to questions people may have. For example, in response to: “Surely we can’t return to the days of back street abortionists and abortion tourism?”, the presentation says: “Claims of thousands of deaths before the 1967 Abortion Act were wildly exaggerated,” without offering any evidence to support that claim.

Clear links exist between Dorries and several of the organisations involved in lobbying against current abortion laws, one of which – the Lawyers Christian Fellowship – was intimately involved in the running of Dorries’ earlier ’20 reasons for 20 weeks’ campaign.

The LCF worked closely with Nadine Dorries in 2008 when both were lobbying for the abortion legal limit to be reduced from 24 weeks, as it currently stands.

Activities of the then LCF Director of Public Policy, Andrea Minichiello Williams, were part of a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary (short clip below).

In an interview last year, Nadine Dorries also admitted that her ’20 Reasons for 20 Weeks’ campaign website was created by interns at the fundamentalist group Christian Concern for our Nation for free.

Another member of this alliance – CARE (Christian Action Research and Education) would, in all likelihood, be the major beneficiary of the first of Dorries’ new amendments. The organisation seeks to prevent established abortion service providers, including the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and Marie Stopes International, from providing pre-abortion counselling, forcing women into the independent sector.

As we revealed in 2008, Dorries herself prefers that legal abortion limits are reduced to around only 9 weeks.

Dr Saunders himself admitted this in 2008.

Dr Peter Saunders, general secretary of the Christian Medical Fellowship, said his group was supporting 20 weeks as a first step. “It gets a lot of people on board and gets us on the way,” he said. “We have to realise we are in for a very long battle here.”

The presentation referred to in this article was obtained by entirely legal means from the website of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship. Extracts from the presentation are provided here without the express permission of the LCF or Dr Peter Saunders for the purpose of news reporting, research and criticism.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
'Unity' is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He also blogs at Ministry of Truth.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Equality ,Feminism

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


A document obtained by myself indicates that Conservative MP Nadine Dorries’ recently launched Right to Know campaign could be part of long-term strategy to secure the complete prohibition of abortion in the UK on any grounds.

“Could be”? It was pretty obvious even before you found that document that this was exactly what they were doing.

Nice find, though.

Standard foot-in-the-door strategy this, each step making the next seem less unreasonable than it is. I strongly doubt it will end at prohibiting abortians either, the next target will be contraceptives.

Add to this that Dorries is also pushing for the teaching of abstinence alongside sex education… but only for girls for some reason:

“That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require schools to provide certain additional sex education to girls aged between 13 and 16; to provide that such education must include information and advice on the benefits of abstinence from sexual activity; and for connected purposes.”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmfbusi/e01.htm

“Could be”? It was pretty obvious even before you found that document that this was exactly what they were doing.

For the record, the assessment given of this presentation is much less guarded over the Ministry and, of course, its one thing to know what the buggers are up but quite another to be in a position to provide documentary proof.and nail down the lid, so to speak.

Add to this that Dorries is also pushing for the teaching of abstinence alongside sex education… but only for girls for some reason:

Teenage boys will be delighted with that – Dorries clearly hasn’t seen the US study which showed that pushing abstinence doubled the prevalence of teenage girls engaging in oral and/or anal intercourse in order to preserve their precious virginity.

@5 There was more than just preserving virginity going on iirc, because abst only was often exclusive, ie the only sex education teens were given was “don’t have sex till you’re married” they were absolutely ignorant of STD prevention, safe practice etc.
Unsurprisingly bullshit then filled this knowledge gap with such innovations as drinking a capful of bleach to prevent Chlamydia, as one example.
Dorries et al need to learn that ignorance is not a shield.

@6.

Yes, some of the stuff that emerged out of the Bush-era abstinence-only programmes was pretty horrific, not to mention that at least one of the later studies showed no difference in STD rates but a higher incidence on unwanted pregnancy in the abstinence-only cohort.

As you say, ingnorance is not a shield, other than against reality.

You cite “Claims of thousands of deaths before the 1967 Abortion Act were wildly exaggerated,” without offering any evidence to support that claim. without pointing to the evidence in the other direction. Links please?

Fine work again by Unity on this.

Exactly right, above, re: the “chipping away” theory – thus Dorries’ obsession with lowering the abortion time limit in previous years. The number of late term abortions performed is actually a very small proportion of all abortions, but by focusing debate on the time limit issue, Dorries looked to make inroads into legal abortion altogether, as the subsequent proposals on counselling and so forth prove. That’s standard procedure for politicians looking to do real damage to free and legal abortion.

10. Chaise Guevara

@ 2 Cylux

“I strongly doubt it will end at prohibiting abortians either, the next target will be contraceptives”

Never happen.

11. pointing out the obvious

@8

It was never stated that there was any evidence either way, and on that subject there is no specific position taken by the author – merely that there is no evidence for the very specific position taken by LCF. Just because one position is not evidenced, it’s not a suggestion that the opposing position is evidenced – it could be true that it makes no difference, much like you, I’ve got no idea nad i’d need to look for the evidence to find out.

Political debate doesn’t benefit from entrenched views, and it certainly doesn’t benefit from strategies such as these. The abortion debate is going to get louder and more tribal, resulting in people just shouting moral slogans at each other. This isn’t what politics needs, it’s not what the medical profession needs and it’s not what people having to make the decision need.

Some issues, such as abortion, rest on philosophical differences. Well, in that case, let’s sit down and discuss when a bunch of cells becomes a life. When does it flicker into existence? To what extent are mother and potential child one and the same entity? Our approach to abortion depneds on us thinking through these issues carefully, not by just repeating what someone else maintains is right.

In terms of abstinance, it’s less about philosophical principles and more about results. Surely what most people on both sides want is for teenagers to be happy, not to get STDs, and not to get pregnant. (That’s a generalisation, of course.) If abstinance does not produce good results, as many commentators about have pointed out, then it’s not a good method. It’s foolish to push through something which has been demonstrated to have such a negative effect.

@10 No it won’t thankfully, not while there’s still people fighting against such chipping away at the boulder tactics 🙂

Tony:

First and foremost, its not clear that anyone has ever claimed that thousands of death could be attributed to illegal abortions prior to 1967 other than in a broad historical context.

Even a relatively rare cause of death can accumulate a large number of casualties if statistics are collated over a long enough timespan, hence the statement in the presentation is itself misleading inasmuch as it fails either to provide a source for the claim or specify the period of time to which it relates.

As will all illegal activities, reliable statistics are difficult to come by, however, a written answer to a parliamentary question given in 1990 (and recorded in Hansard) gives the following data on deaths from criminal abortion in England and Wales between 1961-63 and 1982-84, the first period during which there were no fatalities.

Number of deaths from criminal abortion in England and Wales

1961–63: 77
1964–66: 98
1967–69: 74
1970–72: 37
1973–75: 10
1976–78: 4
1979–81: 1
1982–84: nil

It its also worth noting that a parliamentary report published in 1959 estimated that 20% of all gynaecological admissions to NHS hospitals were attributable to complications arising out of illegal abortions.

15. Thatcherite Clegg

She’s like Sarah Palin only nuttier.

I’m so glad LibCon is picking up this issue; too often it seems like Dorries and her backers are flying under the radar and getting away with some seriously scary advances to their overall strategy.

We only need to look across the pond to what’s been going on in the US the last couple of years to see that there is no compromise position that the anti-woman lobby will stop at – they chip away at the common sense liberties of adult individuals while peddling lies and propaganda about pregnancy, birth and contraceptives.

They’re serious, they’re here to stay, and we need to fight them loudly, early, and often.

[…] let’s sit down and discuss when a bunch of cells becomes a life. When does it flicker into existence? To what extent are mother and potential child one and the same entity?

I don’t disagree with you, in the sense that this is an important discussion, but I think it’s a distraction from the more important philosophical question of how much can an adult person be obliged to sacrifice their bodily autonomy and resources to another life form? Can we require a person to be permanently strapped to a dialysis machine (bad medical example I know, but bear with me) for 9 months so that a close relative – child, parent, sibling – can live? How far can we penalise them in law of they decline to do so? Can we mandate that all viable bone marrow, kidney or other non-lethal organ donations must donate such organs to their matched patients, in life saving cases? Can we punish them or their doctors when this doesn’t happen?

This question has been more or less settled in philosophical and legal circles; for all practical purposes the consensus is that we cannot mandate that an adult, sentient person give up their bodily autonomy for the sake of even another adult, sentient person – let alone an undeveloped person-in-potentia. Not on the basis of the Enlightenment philosophies that underlaay most of our approach to legislation, anyway.

The “but is it alive” debate is a red herring in this context – much more difficult to answer, and the answer itself not conclusive, so convenient for polemicists in that it can be essentially never ending – from this fact. It was introduced, very deliberately, through litigation by anti abortion groups in the US in the post Roe vs. Wade era; not something that anyone really bothered about before then, to the best of my knowledge – not even the Catholic Church.

ClaraX:

Yes, the debate ultimate does come down to philosophical differences, differences that are unfortunately irreconcilable.

The problem that the anti-abortion lobby has is that its moral views on abortion do not command any signficant public support – polling put the numbers who would support a total or near total ban at only 9%.

In that sense, they’ve already lost the moral argument are have had to resort to a range of other, generally dishonest methods in an effort to try and shift public opinions in their direction, i.e. push polling, promotion of junk science, smearing of opponents.

If you check the archives here, you’ll find several posts dating back to 2008 and the HF&E bill which spawned quite detailed and, at times, fractious philosophical discussions on abortion, foetal viability and a range of other related issues.

19. TorquilMacneil

“I don’t disagree with you, in the sense that this is an important discussion, but I think it’s a distraction from the more important philosophical question of how much can an adult person be obliged to sacrifice their bodily autonomy and resources to another life form? ”

I agree with you, and this tends to boil down to a Nozickian position on self-ownership among pro-choicers which contradicts their other ethical or political positions (the same is true in reverse of the other position). It is a curious irony of this debate and may be why the moral arguments are so rarely articulated in any very coherent form.

It’s laughable that she feels abstinence-based sex ed should only be aimed at girls and says a lot about the way she and her cohorts are apporaching this. It’s the same approach the disastrous abstinence-only sex ed in the US took and look where that got teenagers. No less likely to have sex, but completely unaware of sexual health issues and contraception options. And also worried/upset because more often than not they’d been told that sexual activity would make them ‘dirty’ and therefore they’d be unwanted when it came to marriage in the future. Dorries is entitled to be anti-choice but we can’t have her trying to impose this damaging stuff on the population as a whole.

21. Planeshift

““I strongly doubt it will end at prohibiting abortians either, the next target will be contraceptives”

Actually the end point will be posters placed throughout the country with the slogan “every time you masturbate, you commit genocide”

22. Chaise Guevara

@ 21

I much prefer the version of that phrase that ends “…God kills a kitten”.

23. James Reade

“the presentation says: “Claims of thousands of deaths before the 1967 Abortion Act were wildly exaggerated,” without offering any evidence to support that claim.”

Interesting. Since when was the onus on the person doubting a claim to provide evidence? I believe that the claim regarding thousands of deaths pre-1967 is the one that needs to be proven here, not the converse.

To say otherwise kind of reveals your prejudice on this – as does describing CCFON as “fundamentalist”. It’s a conservative Christian group acting out of a standard reading of the Bible and understanding of the sanctity of life. If you don’t like the Bible, just say it.

Heck of a lot of wild prejudice in the comments too.

24. Shatterface

‘Yes, the debate ultimate does come down to philosophical differences, differences that are unfortunately irreconcilable’

Unfortunately one side of the ‘philosophical’ debate is actually *theological* (Christian Fellowship, etc) so there’s a degree of incomensurability between opposing parties.

Once you introduce the idea of *sin* to the argument the weighing up of one harm against another you might find in utilitarian vs deontoligal arguments (for instance) go out the window.

Anyway, good article: a reasoned argument backed up with a bit of investigation.

@23

Do try to keep up, James…

Before making the claim that “Claims of thousands of deaths before the 1967 Abortion Act were wildly exaggerated,” one at least demonstrate that such claims have, in fact been made by providing a relevant source.

In the absence of any such source, that statement can simply be dismissed as a straw man argument.

To say otherwise kind of reveals your prejudice on this – as does describing CCFON as “fundamentalist”. It’s a conservative Christian group acting out of a standard reading of the Bible and understanding of the sanctity of life.

From CCFON’s statement of faith:

3. The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God. It is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behaviour.

Ergo, fundamentalist.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

26. Chaise Guevara

@ 24 Shatterface

Arguably a straw-man, that: you can be pro-life without involving religion at all.

The reason the two sides can’t be reconciled is that backing one means disregarding the other. You can compromise – and we do at the moment by allowing abortion on demand within a legal time limit – but obviously a solution that would keep both sides happy is currently impossible. And so never the twain shall meet.

3. The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God. It is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behaviour.

God Hates Figs.

28. Shatterface

‘Arguably a straw-man, that: you can be pro-life without involving religion at all’

I don’t think its a straw man argument to assume an organisation calling themselves a Christian Fellowship might be a bit religious.

And what percentage of the ‘pro-life’ movement is secular, let alone atheist?

29. Chaise Guevara

28 Shatterface

“I don’t think its a straw man argument to assume an organisation calling themselves a Christian Fellowship might be a bit religious.

And what percentage of the ‘pro-life’ movement is secular, let alone atheist?”

Obviously the Christian Fellowship is religious! And yes, so are nearly all pro-lifers, at least in my experience. What I’m saying is that that doesn’t mean that all the arguments against abortion are theological. If they were, I’d consider it a non-issue aside from the real-word fallout.

Thanks very much for publishing this. This is a truly outstanding piece of detective work!

You have successfully uncovered a document that has been in the public domain and distributed to anyone who has asked for over four years!

In future, you can save yourself a lot of trouble by visiting the CMF website at http://www.cmf.org.uk. There you will find over 25,000 documents on a whole variety of issues at the interface of Christianity and medicine all of which can be downloaded freely.

In future if you would like any other information written by me or published by the Christian Medical Fellowship please just ask.

And if you’d like my opinion on a whole variety of other issues please do check out my blog at http://pjsaunders.blogspot.com/

And for the record, if you check me out on google you will find that I have for many years been working to prevent the legalisation of euthanasia, restrict abortion, ban animal-human hybrids, prevent HIV, support developing world medical work, oppose human trafficking, support minimum price for alcohol, encourage exercise, promote just trade, aid and debt policies and teach people about Jesus Christ etc etc.

My views are not secret and never have been. If you would like to know any more of my views that are not represented on the blog please just ask.

Warm regards

Peter

Peter:

Clearly you have no idea what a Googlewhack is. If you did, you wouldn’t be stupid try the old ‘in the public domain gambit’ to try worm your way out of this.

Yes, its quite clear what your views on abortion are.

This isn’t about you, its about the carefully contrived wedge strategy outlined in your presentation and the evidence that Nadine Dorries has been operating to your script, in conjunction with Andrea Minichiello Williams, while absurdly claiming to be ‘pro-choice’.

Unity:

Nadine Dorries operates to her own script and is neither pro-choice nor pro-life.
Why do you think she is being ostracised by both movements?

See http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=24463 and http://bit.ly/hmxY1Z

‘Leaked documents’ are usually not publicly available as this one was. At least have the decency to link to Peter Saunders response at his blog: http://pjsaunders.blogspot.com/2011/04/oh-no-ive-been-rumbled-they-got-me.html

This is an interesting blog. I see from the about page at http://liberalconspiracy.org/about-us/ that there are 31 regular contributors.

I note that 31 of them have names and that three write under pseudonyms including the writer of the above, Unity, who is apparently ‘a member of the Labour party’.

I’m always suspicious of people who won’t use their real name. They usually have something to hide. It always makes me curious.

Is anyone able to tell me who Unity is. I would like to know given that he has shown such an interest in what I have written.

If its too sensitive to write his real name here then please post it on my blog at http://bit.ly/gDdc6w or email me at CMF are of info@cmf.org.uk

Many thanks

What a shocking post that was. Full of typos and I can’t even add up properly. Almost as bad as saying ‘How far does Nadine Dorries want to restriction abortion rights?’ It’s clearly too early in the morning! And I can’t even work out how to delete it.

What I meant to say was:

‘This is an interesting blog. I see from the about page at http://liberalconspiracy.org/about-us/ that there are 31 regular contributors.

I note that 28 of them have real names and that three write under pseudonyms including the writer of the above, Unity, who is apparently ‘a member of the Labour party’.

I’m always suspicious of people who won’t use their real names. They usually have something to hide. It always makes me curious.

Is anyone able to tell me who Unity is? I would like to know given that he has shown such an interest in what I have written.

If its too sensitive for you to write his real name here (after all this is the liberal conspiracy!) then please post it on my blog at http://bit.ly/gDdc6w or email me at info@cmf.org.uk

If you post it here and use a pseudonym then I won’t ask who you are 🙂

You people have so much fun – all this smoke and mirrors stuff. Its almost like politics.

Many thanks

@35

I’m always suspicious of people who won’t use their real names. They usually have something to hide. It always makes me curious.

That’s because you’re a mental. Seriously, I bet you go out of your way to refer to Lady Gaga as Stefani Germanotta don’t you?

37. Chaise Guevara

36. Cylux

I love the way friend Peter mourns the lack of trust shown by those who won’t reveal their real names online, while simultaneously begging other people to invade someone’s privacy on his behalf.

@35 Peter

Why do people not reveal their real names online, Peter? It’s because they don’t want to be harrassed by people like you.

38. Flowerpower

Clara X @ 12

If abstinence does not produce good results, as many commentators about have pointed out, then it’s not a good method.

Abstinence, when properly carried out, is a 100% foolproof method. But if you know someone who’s always abstained from sex but still got pregnant, do tell us about her.

39. Chaise Guevara

@ Flowerpower

“Abstinence, when properly carried out, is a 100% foolproof method. But if you know someone who’s always abstained from sex but still got pregnant, do tell us about her.”

Be sensible. As a personal choice, obviously abstinence is the best way of avoiding pregnancy. However, as an educational policy – which is presumably what we’re talking about here – it fails massively. You tell people to abstain, but a large amount of them end up having sex anyway. Most abstinence programmes don’t tell people about using contraception and so forth, so when they do have sex they end up doing it unprotected. And get pregnant.

“Abstinence is 100% effective” only makes sense when you’re talking about personal decisions. Outside of that, it’s bullshit.

@ 35

I’m always suspicious of people who won’t use their real names. They usually have something to hide. It always makes me curious.

Well I do it because I don’t like bricks through my window (yep, I’ve had them) or hate mail – and worse – through my letter box (yep, had that too)!

Peter Saunders

the interface of Christianity and medicine

The two are mutually exclusive.

Left to christianity we’d still be casting out non existent demons for every cough or sneeze.

42. Mr S. Pill

@41

“Bless you” 😉

43. dilys greehalgh

I am old enough to remember the many deaths due to illegal abortions .My friend as a young girl watched her mum bleed to death after abortion.
Many of the deaths were due to septicaemia post op , and abortion would not be on death cert . So official figures are way out probably by hundreds.
Also ill health for years could follow and eventually lead to early death.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Katie McCrory

    RT @bloggerheads: Leaked document: How far does Nadine Dorries want to restrict abortion rights? http://bit.ly/fxIVJj (headline fixed. it was bugging me.)

  2. Jennifer White

    Leaked document: How far does Nadine Dorries want to restriction abortion rights? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/kDmiAyK via @libcon

  3. Natacha Kennedy

    RT @CathElliott: Leaked document: How far does Nadine Dorries want to restriction abortion rights? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/1u1CDBM via @libcon

  4. Spir.Sotiropoulou

    RT @bloggerheads: Leaked document: How far does Nadine Dorries want to restrict abortion rights? http://bit.ly/fxIVJj (headline fixed. i …

  5. Mark Clapham

    RT @libcon: Leaked document: How far does Nadine Dorries want to restriction abortion rights? http://bit.ly/dTqgAT

  6. Helen Wilkie

    RT @libcon: Leaked document: How far does Nadine Dorries want to restriction abortion rights? http://bit.ly/dTqgAT

  7. magnetite magnetite

    If you continue to do your best to reduce my daughters to mere chattels, I will strive to kill your God. http://bit.ly/fxIVJj #GoghelpGod

  8. MarinaS

    RT @libcon: Leaked document: How far does Nadine Dorries want to restriction abortion rights? http://bit.ly/dTqgAT

  9. Tom O'Daighre

    RT @MissEllieMae: No way, @Nadine_MP. Women have died for our rights, and we will not let them go easily: http://t.co/G0vITRJ

  10. Martin Eve

    RT @MissEllieMae: No way, @Nadine_MP. Women have died for our rights, and we will not let them go easily: http://t.co/G0vITRJ

  11. Ross Lawson

    Hadn't heard much about the wretched Nadine Dorries for a while. She's back with a doozy: http://bit.ly/fxIVJj

  12. Sarah K

    RT @temaris: Nadine Dorries can take her lying, underhanded fundamentalist anti-choice plans and take a long walk off a short pier. http://bit.ly/gPwg4t

  13. mamie moore

    Leaked document: How far does Nadine Dorries want to restriction …: “That leave be given to bring in a Bill to… http://bit.ly/i8aC0e

  14. Abortion Rights

    "Leaked document: How far does Nadine #Dorries want to restriction abortion rights?" http://tinyurl.com/5spuusg @libcon

  15. Emma Ritch

    RT @Abortion_Rights: "Leaked document: How far does Nadine #Dorries want to restriction abortion rights?" http://tinyurl.com/5spuusg @libcon

  16. Ian Adamson

    Jesus H. The Tories really are a scummy bunch aren't they. Abortion rights under threat: http://bit.ly/i3sFpy

  17. ?ø???? ??

    RT @IanPlaysMusic: Jesus H. The Tories really are a scummy bunch aren't they. Abortion rights under threat: http://bit.ly/i3sFpy

  18. AMB

    RT @IanPlaysMusic: Jesus H. The Tories really are a scummy bunch aren't they. Abortion rights under threat: http://bit.ly/i3sFpy

  19. Soho Politico

    Three cheers for @Unity_MOT for tireless scrutiny of Dorries' dishonest anti-abortion crusade. http://t.co/4F3AjaY More great stuff on MOT.

  20. sunny hundal

    RT @SohoPolitico: Three cheers for @Unity_MOT for tireless scrutiny of Dorries' dishonest anti-abortion crusade. http://t.co/4F3AjaY More great stuff on MOT.

  21. Moonbootica

    RT @SohoPolitico: Three cheers for @Unity_MOT for tireless scrutiny of Dorries' dishonest anti-abortion crusade. http://t.co/4F3AjaY More great stuff on MOT.

  22. Press Not Sorry

    RT @SohoPolitico: Three cheers for @Unity_MOT for tireless scrutiny of Dorries' dishonest anti-abortion crusade. http://t.co/4F3AjaY More great stuff on MOT.

  23. Unity

    Meanwhile on Planet #Dorries – http://bit.ly/h4qJfH – note the '1990 was a disaster comment' then check slide 50 here – http://bit.ly/fxIVJj

  24. Miriam Said

    RT @bloggerheads: Leaked document: How far does Nadine Dorries want to restrict abortion rights? http://bit.ly/fxIVJj (headline fixed. i …

  25. Joseph Bush

    RT @SohoPolitico: Three cheers for @Unity_MOT for tireless scrutiny of Dorries' dishonest anti-abortion crusade. http://t.co/4F3AjaY More great stuff on MOT.

  26. Ben

    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/04/08/leaked-document-how-far-does-nadine-dorries-want-to-restriction-abortion-rights/

  27. Tim Ireland

    RT @Unity_MoT: Meanwhile on Planet #Dorries – http://bit.ly/h4qJfH – note the '1990 was a disaster comment' then check slide 50 here – http://bit.ly/fxIVJj

  28. Paul Hutchinson

    Oh Nadine, do f*** off! >> RT @bloggerheads: Leaked doc: How far does Nadine Dorries want to restrict abortion rights? http://bit.ly/fxIVJj

  29. Miriam Said

    RT @hutch_pr: Oh Nadine, do f*** off! >> RT @bloggerheads: Leaked doc: How far does Nadine Dorries want to restrict abortion rights? http://bit.ly/fxIVJj

  30. Lerryn

    RT @bloggerheads: Leaked document: How far does Nadine #Dorries want to restriction abortion rights? http://t.co/ZPkzSNr via @libcon

  31. Jon

    @pyschobabbler http://bit.ly/dQb0zg http://bit.ly/fxIVJj http://goo.gl/ItmmK http://goo.gl/vLox2 — What I found in my timeline

  32. Martin Young

    @dustsister http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/04/08/leaked-document-how-far-does-nadine-dorries-want-to-restriction-abortion-rights/

  33. Dusty

    RT @IanPlaysMusic: Jesus H. The Tories really are a scummy bunch aren't they. Abortion rights under threat: http://bit.ly/i3sFpy

  34. Peter Kennedy

    RT @IanPlaysMusic: Jesus H. The Tories really are a scummy bunch aren't they. Abortion rights under threat: http://bit.ly/i3sFpy

  35. Kate

    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/04/08/leaked-document-how-far-does-nadine-dorries-want-to-restriction-abortion-rights/

  36. InnesMacleod

    RT @SwearySocialist: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/04/08/leaked-document-how-far-does-nadine-dorries-want-to-restriction-abortion-ri

  37. Lucy Brown

    RT @SwearySocialist: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/04/08/leaked-document-how-far-does-nadine-dorries-want-to-restriction-abortion-ri

  38. Selling The Drama | adam

    […] there is Nadine Dorries. Again. This time on her insidious attempts to ban abortion altogether. Short version on LibCon, and the (very) long version on Ministry of […]

  39. Lauren

    Leaked document: How far does Nadine Dorries want to restriction abortion rights? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/z5eofL1 via @libcon

  40. Lisa Mitchell

    http://bit.ly/ev4ZT8 this leak is shocking given the chance Nadine Dorries will move women back not forward

  41. sunny hundal

    @KatBanyard good to meet yesterday! Here is the story I mentioned we did on abortion campaign by Dorries http://t.co/kDmiAyK

  42. Erika Torres

    Leaked document: How far does Nadine Dorries want to restrict … http://bit.ly/lRScmm

  43. Alistair Mackenzie

    #Dorries – worse than you thought.
    Severely restricted abortion rights too.
    http://bit.ly/i3sFpy

  44. mike

    #Dorries as mad as a box of hats? – http://t.co/jWwpHxL

  45. What is Nadine Dorries MP proposing exactly? | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] need to get organised and mobilised. As we have pointed out on Liberal Conspiracy already, this part of a long game by Nadine Dorries. […]

  46. TheStoneyCrow

    At least its not this Nadine Dorries http://bit.ly/jDAAyT or this one http://bit.ly/l0831j

  47. Charlie

    Nadine Dorries, please police your own uterus. http://tinyurl.com/5spuusg

  48. Tim

    Only argument for LibDems staying in gov now is to get MP's recall thru so Nadine Dorries can go back to private sector http://bit.ly/i3sFpy

  49. Catherine Elms

    This made me really angry. The leaked document revealing Dorries' long-term plan to prohibit abortion in UK: http://t.co/t1xoqxI via @libcon

  50. Jon

    @borngeek I have read them, yeah. This is also important: http://t.co/Ir4jp1z

  51. | George R. Terry

    […] earlier in the year and can be explored in more detail on Ministry of Truth and downloaded from Liberal Conspiracy : The document, a Powerpoint presentation produced by Dr Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical […]

  52. Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] views on abortion by Sunny Hundal     September 1, 2011 at 9:05 am In April this year we unearthed a presentation by Dr Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship, in which he argued it was important to […]

  53. br bbbse

    @LouiseMensch case point: http://t.co/v2JvYAB

  54. Abortion | Larissa's Blog

    […] not saying Nadine Dorries does not have links to Christian groups who have openly admitted their ‘end game’ as it were is to ba… and to achieve this by slow alterations to public perceptions and the law.  But there does seem to […]

  55. Tim Ireland

    Read about the long term plans to restrict access to abortion, as outlined by 'Dr' Peter Saunders: http://t.co/cl6JMamp #dorries

  56. Martin Robbins

    Read about the long term plans to restrict access to abortion, as outlined by 'Dr' Peter Saunders: http://t.co/cl6JMamp #dorries

  57. Hester Fangrrling

    Read about the long term plans to restrict access to abortion, as outlined by 'Dr' Peter Saunders: http://t.co/cl6JMamp #dorries

  58. Roy

    Read about the long term plans to restrict access to abortion, as outlined by 'Dr' Peter Saunders: http://t.co/cl6JMamp #dorries

  59. Lola

    No. Fuck Dorries and her cronies. This will NOT happen in this country. We can't let it. http://t.co/bMyuois7 #abortion #womensrights

  60. Scriptrix

    Would citing the sources they refer to be too much to ask? "Studies" is sub-6th form. http://t.co/lIyF2hFf #abortion

  61. Teddy

    Read about the long term plans to restrict access to abortion, as outlined by 'Dr' Peter Saunders: http://t.co/cl6JMamp #dorries

  62. Le

    Read about the long term plans to restrict access to abortion, as outlined by 'Dr' Peter Saunders: http://t.co/cl6JMamp #dorries

  63. Josephine Jones

    Read about the long term plans to restrict access to abortion, as outlined by 'Dr' Peter Saunders: http://t.co/cl6JMamp #dorries

  64. JennieSue

    Read about the long term plans to restrict access to abortion, as outlined by 'Dr' Peter Saunders: http://t.co/cl6JMamp #dorries

  65. hiktout

    Read about the long term plans to restrict access to abortion, as outlined by 'Dr' Peter Saunders: http://t.co/cl6JMamp #dorries

  66. A Green

    Read about the long term plans to restrict access to abortion, as outlined by 'Dr' Peter Saunders: http://t.co/cl6JMamp #dorries

  67. Unity

    @anarchic_teapot Oops, slight memory – it was actually after I published a powerpoint of his at LC http://t.co/2dIYljDy

  68. Tim Ireland

    #Dorries works with a group who disguise religious agenda behind seemingly logical/secular arguments http://t.co/cl6JMamp #prochoicemeet

  69. Cal Bryant

    #Dorries works with a group who disguise religious agenda behind seemingly logical/secular arguments http://t.co/cl6JMamp #prochoicemeet

  70. Lisa Chalkley

    #Dorries works with a group who disguise religious agenda behind seemingly logical/secular arguments http://t.co/cl6JMamp #prochoicemeet





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.