Labour’s Deputy Leader Whipped Abortion Vote
It’s now out in the open. Despite the fact that abortion is meant to be a conscience issue in the House of Commons, Harriet Harman, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, organised a massive whipping operation on Labour MPs during Tuesday’s debate on lowering the legal limit on abortion.
A secret plot led by Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman sabotaged moves to reduce the time limit for abortions, it was claimed last night.
She is accused of organising a group of women MPs who ‘browbeat and bullied’ their colleagues into voting to keep the 24-week limit.
The disclosure prompted claims that Labour had made a mockery of Gordon Brown’s pledge to allow MPs to vote last Tuesday according to their consciences.
Labour opponents of cutting the abortion limit allegedly got round this by persuading party chiefs to order MPs to attend the debate.
Do you see what they did? It’s a "free vote", but you have to attend.
Technically, once the MPs turned up, they could vote either way. In reality, sources say, they were greeted by Ms Harman’s group, who pressured them to vote against the move, proposed by Tory MP Nadine Dorries.
According to one account, women Labour MPs formed a ‘human corridor’ to channel their colleagues into the ‘No’ lobby. One Labour MP claimed to have heard one of Ms Harman’s team shout: ‘Vote against us and the sisterhood will never let you forget it.’
Ms Harman was assisted by fellow pro-abortion Labour MPs Barbara Follett, Joan Ruddock and Emily Thornberry.
Pretty disgusting, especially since Dawn Primarolo, Minister for Health and High Priestess of Molech, accused Nadine Dorries, Ann Widdecombe and Edward Leigh of playing party politics with the debate.
Ms Harman last night denied she had acted improperly. ‘It is deplorable that people who lost the argument now attempt to cry foul,’ she said. ‘It was a free vote and I worked with others to ensure that as many MPs as possible voted for the status quo.
‘We won because we had the most persuasive arguments. It is totally untrue that there was any kind of whipping operation.’
And yet, she was applying pressure on only Labour MPs. How does such an action tie up with the idea that she was trying "to ensure that as many MPs as possible voted for the status quo"? Surely if that’s your aim you twist the arms of all MPs, regardless of party.
Here’s how Nadine Dorries has responded:
Simon rang me the day after the vote to tell me that he had been given information that Harriett Harman had organised a huge whipping operation after the abortion vote. He wouldn’t disclose any details, however, I did get the feeling that maybe his information had come from Labour MPs as there was no way I, or any other Conservative, would have access to that kind of information.
His article today bears that out.
I love the picture of Harriet Harman watching my speech from behind the speaker’s chair, hand on hip – with a look that says it all!
Apparently, mine was the only speech she came into the chamber to listen to.
Harriett Harman’s mistake was to politicise an issue which has always been a free vote. She has now altered the basis upon which abortion discussion takes place within Westminster for a very long time.
Too right. If Gordon Brown thinks he can let his deputy abuse the notion of a free vote then Labour will get eveything coming to them. If the majority of Labour MPs lined up to support the 24 weeks position, despite the clear evidence that babies born before that time survive, despite the clear evidence that babies as young as 16 weeks (or less) feel pain, then we need to name them as what they are – men and women prepared to let others murder children. Abortion is nothing less that child murder and the Government has chosen to take a particular stance on the issue that allows thousands of children to be murdered every year then we must speak out against it.
Do you remember the film ‘Pretty Woman’ and the commission paid shop assistant on the strip, who looks down her nose with disdain at Julia Roberts as though she is not worthy of her attention – and in particular the scene where Julia Roberts walks back into the shop, arms loaded with designer bags and says to the gobsmacked shop assistant ‘Big mistake, big, huge’.
I do too.
I look forward to seeing where Nadine takes her campaign.
I still don’t concede. You are simply not following through the logicality of your argument, arbitrarily choosing a cut-off point where medics should support “non-viable” human lives.
Peter-
“You are simply not following through the logicality of your argument, arbitrarily choosing a cut-off point where medics should support “non-viable†human lives”.
I’ve explained all of this across various comments, but I’ll consolidate them now.
As I said, there is nothing “arbitrary” about the upper limit for abortions. It was set there based on scientific and medical opinions, the consensus of which is that it should still remain there. According to experts in the field, 24 weeks is the limit beyond which foetuses stand the best chance of surviving. I have explained that the only reason those that are born before that threshold even survive is thanks to access to advanced neonatal care, and foreknowledge of the premature birth that gives doctors the opportunity to “force” the growth of the foetus as much as possible. Even immediately after 24 weeks, the chances of survival are still low, but this is where the doctors and scientists have set the limit. Not based on obscure theology, but on their expertise and understanding of pregnancy and foetal development in the real world.
I have no issue with medical intervention being undertaken prior to 24 weeks if it is the woman’s intention to keep it. You haven’t heard me arguing against foetal surgery, have you?
My argument deals with this specific area, around the limit of viability. It does not extend beyond birth, to newborn children. The situations are not the same, nor are the issues involved.
My position has always been that, up to 24 weeks, given what we know about foetal development, the woman’s right to choose wins out. Beyond that threshold, the child’s right then comes into consideration, except in very specific circumstances that I have mentioned: the mother’s life being in jeopardy, severe developmental disability, rape, and others.
As far as I can see there is nothing inconsistent about my argument.
Your argument is illogical. You would have one surgeon working desperately to save a baby’s life in one operating theatre, while in the neighbouring one he would be murdering a child of the same age, all because of what the mother wants. Why is one life more valuable than another? Your argument seems to be “because the mothers chooses it to be”. That’s got nothing to do with 24 weeks and everything to do with selfish concerns.
I’m aware that this is rather cutting across the debate on this thread, but nonetheless would like to ask you both, if you’re willing to answer, about your views on pacifism (or should I say ‘waging peace’?). What’s behind that is partly me thinking that it would be consistent to be passionately against abortion, and also a pacifist – because the absolute respect for and valuing of life would be at the heart of both positions. Yet (and I know this is a bit crude and stereotypical, but I think there’s some truth in it), often those who are strongly against abortion aren’t pacifists by any means, while those who are pro-choice are often anti-war or anti-military. I’m not trying to imply that either of you fit those boxes by the way. Your post on May 22nd, Peter, about how the abortion vote split along party lines, was interesting – it could be illuminating to compare that with voting on renewal of Trident, say (…but was that voted on? My ignorance coming thru…).
(Answering my own question – I attend Quaker meeting and with several caveats would say I am a pacifist… some of the caveats would be around the fact that I don’t have watertight answers to the obvious or typical questions people challenge pacifists with, and around the fact that I’m very bad at dealing with my own anger. In that sense and others I’m not a non-violent person and I think non-violence is difficult. I’m also aware that there’s a kind of colourless, bloodless ‘pacifism’ which seems to be based on denied anger and so has no energy to it – and I think some of that applies to me. I take heart from the example of such as George Macleod [Iona Community founder]though – a man who was a passionate, vigorous, peacebuilder and never a ‘passivist’ (and indeed, in early life, a soldier). On abortion, I find it difficult to give a clear-cut view – I realise this could be challenged given what I said about consistency above. That said, I was almost persuaded that a reduction from 24 weeks would be right, but not entirely as I note that none of the relevant Royal Colleges seemed to feel the evidence warranted this. I’m a bit inadequate when it comes to debate about abortion – though that could be a cop-out I know.)
Scuse the lack of relevance though… :)
in friendship, Blair
I was greatly saddened to see the 20-week vote fail, and if the reported behaviour of Labour MPs is as described then that is deeply unfortunate to say the least.
However, I am equally concerned by the politicising of the issue from the Conservative perspective. If abortion becomes an issue on which people divide down party lines (as has happened to a large extent in the US) then I think the lesson of the US is that that reduces the prospect of a meaningful reduction in the numbers of abortions, because it reduces the likelihood of cross-party consensus on a change. Labour MPs voting for a reduction become not only traitors to the “sisterhood” but traitors to their party.
To put it cynically, it has suited the Republican Party in the US to be seen as the party that is “anti-abortion” – thus hoovering up the votes of evangelical Christians – while doing pretty well nothing of any real effectiveness to reduce the number of abortions in practice. It would be a shame to see the Conservatives go down the same path. I say this as someone who is anti-abortion but not a Conservative.
Sadly, the fact is that at the moment abortion does not swing many votes as an issue, and a party that scrapped abortion would lose far more votes than it would gain. I wish that were not the case, and hope and pray that one day soon the opposite will be true. But in the meantime it would be harmful both to the anti-abortion cause and the political discourse of this country for abortion to become an issue on which one party “dog-whistles” a small but useful section of the electorate, thus poisoning the issue as a subject for cross-party campaign while ensuring that little or no real progress is made.
If the Conservatives put 20 weeks in their next manifesto, call me. But until then I remain sceptical, though without taking anything away from Nadine Dorries’ admirable campaign.
Hi Blair,
I’m not a pacifist because I read Psalm 82 and I recognise that to defend the cause of the weak and fatherless sometimes involves removing those who think they are “gods”.
Peter-
“Your argument is illogical. You would have one surgeon working desperately to save a baby’s life in one operating theatre, while in the neighbouring one he would be murdering a child of the same age, all because of what the mother wants. Why is one life more valuable than another? Your argument seems to be “because the mothers chooses it to beâ€. That’s got nothing to do with 24 weeks and everything to do with selfish concerns”.
My argument is not illogical, and simply claiming that it is is insufficient. It is not illogical to say that, before the limit of viability, the woman’s right to choose should win out. Past that point, unless there are the specific circumstances I mentioned above, the child’s right wins out, although the woman’s are still considered of course.
Different women want different things. If a woman decides she does not want to have a baby, who are we to say that she must have it? You constantly refer to the right of the woman as being little more than “selfish concerns”, which strikes me as judgemental and condescending. The decision to abort is often the hardest choice a woman will have to make. I would say that it is more selfish to attempt to impose your views on her, especially when those views are fuelled by obscure theological reasoning and religious beliefs origniating from the Bronze Age. The world has moved on since then.
Blair-
I’m not a pacifist either. I suppose I’m anti-war but recognise that sometimes military action may be necessary, but only as a last resort (if that makes any sense!).