Nadine Dorries May 8, 2008

Last night, I attended a lobby of Parliament followed by a rally for Abortion Rights. Many excellent speakers were in attendance, including Zoe Williams, Diane Abbott and Evan Harris, all of whom seemed as exasperated as the attendees were at the fact that every scientific argument for the retention of the current abortion time limit is met by a barrage of contrary lies from Nadine Dorries and her ilk. Her latest blog entry is particularly demonstrative of this fact. She laments that the BMA’s latest research shows: “that there has been no improvement in neo-natal survival rates for 12 years.”

How does Dorries react to this, since it proves her persistent claims that foetuses born at 20-24 weeks are bouncing all around the place? With scientific evidence of her own? By criticising the methodology of the research? Oh no, that’s far too professional and liable to undermine her argument. Dorries says:

I think this report insults the intelligence of the public and MPs alike.

No improvement in neo-natal care in twelve years? Really? So where has all the money that has been pumped into neo-natal services gone then?

A baby born at 23 weeks today stands no better a chance of living than it did in 1996?

Ah, that’s right. Just claim it’s crap. No need for evidence, the Daily Mail can’t be arsed with that bureaucratic nonsense. I’ll tell you where the money for neonatal care has gone, Dorries. Into neonatal care. We don’t give money to neonatal units so that doctors can magically bestow upon a child the higher brain function and lung capacity that only comes with spending 26 weeks in the womb, we spend it on premature infants who have a chance of survival.

What sickens me most about Dorries’ persistent lying, with absolutely no basis, that we can keep most foetuses under 24 weeks alive, is the fact that parents who go into premature labour below 24 weeks are being fed lies by the anti-choice lobby that their child will be fine. No one deserves to go through that heartbreak so that Dorries can play politics. It’s despicable.

If you haven’t already, please write to your MP and ask them to vote on the day to keep 24 weeks. Of course, if they’re pro-life, perhaps suggest they might be better placed in Crewe and Nantwich on the day.

I Hate the Daily Mail March 11, 2008

This we should emphasise from the off. This paper truly despise women, especially when they’re in court. Reporting recently on a sexual assault case, in an attempt to undermine the victim’s testimony they state: “The woman who claimed she was sexually assaulted by Jack Gillett had previously told friends that another student had molested her.”

Christ, if she’s claiming that she’d experienced sexual harassment before, she’s clearly an attention seeking liar, right? Wrong. 1 in 3 women experience sexual violence during their lifetime. Why is it therefore noteworthy that the woman in question had previously been groped by a student at Cambridge? Because for many people, speaking out about attacks and violations of their selves still remains taboo. People like the journalists at the Daily Mail presume every woman a liar until the attackers are convicted. Often, even then, they aren’t satisfied. It is within this culture that 75% of rapes go unreported, and that of those 25% that do get reported, only 5.6% result in a conviction.

Anyway, back to dissecting this “story”:

When she told police months later that he had sexually assaulted her, she failed to mention her earlier alleged encounter with Mr Morrell.

Perhaps that’s because it wasn’t fucking relevant, you idiots. I rang 999 when I narrowly escaped being gang-raped, and failed to mention that I’d been attacked for wearing a miniskirt the year before. Clearly I’m just a sodding liar, untrustworthy as a result. Seriously, nearly every woman I know has been groped several times when simply going for a drink in a pub or club. If my friends get raped in the future, shall I speculate on whether the previous violations to their personal privacy mean they are lying about sexual assault?

I often wonder if the Daily Mail would applaud the reintroduction of Chastity belts. Oh of course not, it’d come out of taxpayers money. Idiots.