This week has seen more twists and turns in the UK's re-energised abortion debate. What's going on - and can we trust the government?
Twitter was abuzz yesterday with the news that pro-choice Labour MP Diane Abbott had resigned from a cross-party group on crisis pregnancy counselling, citing her belief that the group is no more than a front for driving through anti-choice measures.
"The talks that have taken place have been little more than window dressing for what is an aggressive, anti-choice campaign and I am walking away from them," she said.
There's much concern that the government is determined to go ahead with plans to strip certain organisations of their role in providing counselling to women considering having an abortion, despite widespread opposition from politicians, reproductive healthcare providers, doctors, and activists. Calling the anti-choice MPs "Tea Party Tories", Abbott added:
"British social conservatives are increasingly borrowing language and tactics from the US Christian right's playbook."
The resurgence of interest in measures that could turn back the clock on reproductive choice has been spearheaded by just a handful of politicians, led by anti-choicer in chief Nadine Dorries. So far she's made several unsuccessful bids to bring in new legislation and that's a good thing, because if you dig around you can find that she has close links with hardline groups that want the abortion time limit slowly whittled away until it's completely illegal.
It's very unlikely to happen in a country where more than 70 per cent of people are pro-choice, but that doesn't mean Dorries is giving up. Her proposed amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill, which would have prevented organisations that provide abortion services from providing counselling services to pregnant women, was defeated by a majority of 250 last September - hardly a close call. It was a humiliating moment, but Dorries has pressed on.
Last week it was revealed that the cross-party group of MPs, including Dorries and Abbott, has been meeting to debate the proposals again, with one newspaper reporting that they are "deeply divided" over whether crisis pregnancy centres and counselling services should be required to declare their stance on abortion.
And yesterday, Dorries instantly had knives out over Abbott's decision to quit the group, claiming that she wouldn't even know what was happening at the meetings as she "missed one and slept through another". She continued the attack on BBC2's Newsnight, reiterating her claim that Abbott is clueless about the whole situation - and although you could tell Abbott was trying to remain measured and calm about it all, she ended up coming across badly as she failed to really fight her corner in the short time the two women were on air.
It's a shame because like many people, I'm keen to know exactly what's going on during these cross-party talks and exactly how much of an anti-choice agenda is taking root among politicians. Barring pro-choice organisations from counselling vulnerable women is just one of the options they're discussing - and I don't disagree with the second "option" they could put in place, which is making sure that organisations meet minimum standards and train counsellors appropriately. What seems key to me is that women should have rapid access to impartial advice, but with some strong anti-choice voices in the mix, who knows what's going on?
From the beginning, Dorries has stood firm on her opinion that women should be able to access "impartial" crisis pregnancy counselling - arguing that organisations that also provide abortion services have a vested financial interest in convincing women to have terminations. Unfortunately, when she says "impartial" she seems to mean "anti-choice" - and her "vested financial interest" argument doesn't stack up either, because many of these organisations, such as BPAS, are not-for-profit charities.
There's been further concern about her promotion of anti-choice counselling centres since autumn last year, when undercover research revealed that the services many of them are providing are based on scaremongering, giving women false information about abortion procedures and manipulating them. When asked basic questions by "mystery shoppers" about their situations, some "trained" counsellors refused to give out information or claimed not to know.
I firmly believe that whatever an organisation's stance on abortion, it's incredibly irresponsible and dangerous to operate in this way. Pregnancy counselling needs to be about helping women to decide what is right for them, not manipulating them into making decisions, whether that means keeping the baby or not.
Hannah Mudge writes about all things news and feminism-themed for BitchBuzz. You can also read her blog, We Mixed Our Drinks or follow her tweets as @boudledidge.
Image of Diane Abott via www.dianeabbott.org.uk