Vera Drake - 1, Nadine Dorries - 0

Abortion is an emotive issue, which forces women to label themselves absolutely as pro-life or pro-chioce. I identify as a feminist, and if forced as pro-choice; I believe that women should have autonomy over their bodies and their reproductive rights. However, I do not believe an abortion should be viewed lightly. It is a real medical procedure, which can have serious physical and psychological consequences. It should be performed using evidence-based methods and guidelines, and with prior informed consent. What it is not is some form of anti-sacrament that requires religious impetus.

This is what annoyed me when I first read about the Nadine Dorries amendment to the health and social care bill. After her abstinence bill I was ready for another religion-heavy debate. I had a vision of the NHS being destroyed by a pseudo-republican-bible-weilding-pro-life organisation, who spoke of limbo and fire and foetuses gaining their souls at conception (Dorries isn't the only one that can sensationalise). I feel I should state I'm agnostic and believe religion has a lot to contribute to medicine. For example, I believe a chaplain to be a vital support to many at their most vulnerable and the hospice movement is a clear example of what religious communities can contribute. Yet, I was concerned about religion being used as anti-abortion propaganda and women being scared into making the wrong decision for them. My training centres around evidence-based medicine, rather than "Boo! To hell you go" practices.

Then I realised, what annoyed (and still annoys) me most is Dorries' background as a nurse. Most nurses I come across are exceptionally helpful and patient, given that they are very busy and I'm a bumbling health and safety risk on the wards. Dorries is in the minority of the nursing profession, albeit no longer practicing, who is prescriptive in her belief she knows what is in everyone else's best interest (including women she has never met). She is narrow-minded and dogmatic, failing to respect their informed decisions, and discarding current well-researched guidelines.

Her entire amendment seemed to be lacking research and evidence. A mysterious figure of reduction in abortions by a third appeared, with no immediate justification. For a woman that refers to 70% of her blog as fiction, I suspect she has a habit of making things up. This includes her throwing about the claim she is "pro-choice"; she is insistent with this claim, and this too lacks evidence!

Dorries refereed to "soft-marketing techniques" employed by BPAS, comparing deciding to have an abortion to buying wine. It's not soft marketing, it is trying to make a potentially traumatic experience less so; providing a compassionate service for the women claims she is so keen to do the best for. I would also like to stress that having witnessed an ERPC (Evacuation of Retained Products of Conception), a termination and post-missed miscarriage procedure, it is not pleasant to view. Neither is a bowel resection, but I certainly wouldn't want to stop someone with colon cancer having it because it wasn't much fun. ERPC is not witnessed by the woman, as she is either under local or general anaesthetic. One thing that struck me about the procedure was the professionalism and support the staff offered. I know pregnancy itself is not a pathology, but it is more risky than abortion. Also, Care Confidential's training manual (Called to Care) refers to abortion as "a wickedness that grieves God's heart" and "a most grievous sin"(thanks Newsnight!). Yet Dorries fails to mention their view that abortion is the "taking of a human life", when discussing 'independent' organisations. On top of this, the comparison to buying wine is also absurd! Next she'll be proposing prohibition of alcohol because that really would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is not a commodity, driven by consumer anxiety, but a necessity for many women. These are the women who in the past may have died receiving backstreet abortions.

The best way to reduce the number of abortions performed per year is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. This is done through appropriate sex and relationship education and access to contraceptive options. I do not think this will be achieved through Dorries' abstinence bill, which will be voted on in January.

Looking at Dorries' voting record, I noted she voted against same sex couples being allowed access to fertility rights. This prompted me to get worked up again, wave my laptop in front of my partner in disbelief someone could be so backwards on yet another issue and have a cup of tea to calm me back down. A suitably student way to response, I know, but it appears Dorries has her own moral agenda when it comes to reproductive rights. I think this has no place in our health care system or society.

My final complaint is not the scrutiny of the usage of the term 'independent' (but I do want to emphasise that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' guidelines state that advice should be impartial, objective and unbiased - and this is what is subsequently delivered), but that this issue takes away vital attention from the rest of the bill. The bill, which could potentially destroy our NHS, would: increase privatisation; reduce the quality of patient care; increase the inequality between different regions of the country; and make a dent in the total NHS budget (that can ill-afford to be reduced). The entire NHS reform bill lacks evidence! Nadine Dorries came out with the beautiful conspiracy theory that "A former MP who lost his seat in this place [Evan Harris] is blackmailing our prime minister" (doing herself no favours).

I was ecstatic about the vote, rejecting her amendment by 368 votes to 118. I was so happy to hear David Cameron wouldn't offer his backing, due to the fact it would prevent organisations, such as Marie Stopes and British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), from offering counselling. Then I saw the awful clip of him being a petty misogynist again. Small doses of lip-service, do little good when he is so dreadfully patronising to women.

As I said before, abortions carry risks. However, I sincerely believe this amendment carried more risks. It infuriated me she was allowed to propose these dangerous changes through our political system, in her MP role. Then again, would it really be best for her to go back into nursing?

*I apologise how belated this post is. I wanted to comment on the Dorries' amendment, but have only just found the time (and not very much time I'm afraid).