Nadine Dorries & ‘Right to Know’: How Not To Run A Parliamentary Campaign

I will say this for Nadine Dorries: by watching her you can soon learn how not to effect constructive change in Politics. We only have to consider her most recent fiasco in trying to obtain counselling for women considering an abortion.

The purpose of her amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill was certainly a creditable and worthy aim, that most Pro-Lifers would support. And I, for one, would certainly take my hat off to her for the way in which she apparently withstood so many threats and such bullying. She is not a coward – and I know from experience what pro-abortionist aggression tactics are like. I have been involved in the abortion battle for over 40 years, and during the process of Bills seeking to tighten the Law, I was regularly subjected to frightening telephone calls at around midnight and in the early hours of the morning.

My office was broken into a number of times, and during the process of the James White (left) Bill in 1974/75, we had to take turns of sleeping on the office floor to protect our equipment throughout the summer months, because we were broken into so often. On another occasion – during the debates on the Enoch Powell Bill on Embryo Research – we had our office smashed up so badly that the BBC actually made it the first item on their evening news programme.

Far worse, when John Corrie (right) introduced his Bill to amend the abortion law, his family had to withstand the most dreadful harassment. He was a sheep farmer, and lived with his family in a Scottish farm house. His wife was heavily pregnant at the time, and throughout the night she had regular menacing calls until she became absolutely petrified of what might happen to her and her other children.

Nonetheless, much as I sympathise with Mrs. Dorries over the bullying and threats, I have to say that her campaign has done the Pro-Life cause more damage than anything else in 40 years. Furthermore, it is the Pro-Life groups which are now being blamed for the whole fiasco. “What were the Pro-Life groups doing?”, people ask me, “Is it true that Pro-Life groups were not speaking to each other?” In fact, most of us were, and what makes it so infuriating is that the whole thing could have been avoided.

When I first spoke to Mrs. Dorries, she promised that she would consult on the wording of the amendment. In the event, however, she acted behind the backs of all the Pro-Life groups with the exception of one. The rest of us did not see the original draft until she had published it. I immediately made it quite clear that, although we were very anxious to support her, we considered the amendment, as drafted, a hostage to fortune. We explained that we would not organise any kind of grass-roots lobby unless considerable changes were made – the least of which was the need to ensure that the counselling work of LIFE and CARE Confidential would not be blocked, as was a danger with the original draft.

On April 5, I wrote a letter to her explaining our thoughts and stressing that we still very much wanted to support her. I made it clear that RTL considered that any Bill/amendment should concentrate on the information which women should be entitled to receive when considering an abortion. That is the basis of informed consent legislation in Germany and America which has been so successful in bringing down the numbers of women having their pregnancies terminated.

Unfortunately, Mrs. Dorries seemed to think that a website and a publicity campaign, getting newspaper-headlines, would be enough to secure victory. In all my experience, I have never known such a badly run campaign and – above all – one in which the MPs presenting Bills/Amendments did not closely consult their Parliamentary colleagues, showing them the basic respect they are due.

She seemed satisfied to gain the support of Frank Field, the Labour MP, who is profoundly pro-abortion. I well remember the manner in which he whipped Labour colleagues to vote against the Corrie Bill and from the moment I heard he was involved, I predicted that he would not be there when it came to the final scenario. In fact, I wish that I had placed a bet with William Hill: I could have made money for RTL!

One of the problems with Mrs. Dorries and the  Christian lobby group with which she was involved (and which shall remain nameless) is that they know nothing whatsoever about grass-roots lobbying, in which I have gained 40 years' experience. I understand very well how to get “bums on seats” at public meetings and how to get people to swamp MPs with letters on an issue. It is very hard work, and costly, and it takes time to organise. The fact that even the All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group did not know until the very end that she had accepted their suggestions is an indication of the contempt she appears to have for colleagues, as well as (quite evidently) for mainstream Pro-Life groups.

The result was a total lack of any grass-roots lobby campaign as could be seen by the lack of mail MPs received from their constituents. And swamping MPs with individual, personal letters from their constituents is the most important factor in any political campaign! Most MPs take far more notice of letters from voters than they take notice of headlines. One MP who usually has shoals of letters and telephone calls told me on day before the debate that he had received one telephone call and two letters throughout the whole campaign.

During the time that we were trying to persuade Mrs. Dorries to accept some changes, supportive MPs begged Pro-Life colleagues (who had become extremely concerned) that nobody should publicly criticise her. Because of our respect for the parliamentarians involved, RTL made no public comment throughout the campaign – although we did tell our members and others not to write to their MPs urging them to support the amendment, due to its potential dangers.

The only time there was even the vaguest attempt to “consult” (as had been promised from the beginning) was when Mrs. Dorries’ office sent an e-mail to Jim Dobbin MP and to me one night (after my secretary and helpers had left the office). She asked if we could attend a meeting the next morning at around 9.30. We were told than an eminent lawyer whom I respect greatly (and who shall also remain nameless) would also attend. I had a chest infection which made it very difficult for me even to walk and I had to e-mail her to say that I could not attend. It was too late, even, to find somebody to represent me. In addition, it was after 22:30 that night when I finally got hold of Jim Dobbin. He had to attend a Select Committee meeting the next morning and it was impossible for him to go along.

Subsequently, I received an e-mail from Mrs. Dorries telling me that the lawyer-who-shall-remain-nameless considered her amendment would achieve all we wanted. I was thunderstruck, and when I contacted him he told me that he did not wish to become involved in ”squabbles”  between Pro-Life groups. I felt this was very sad, especially after the leading political groups had worked so hard to co-operate. However, he sent an e-mail to all of us listing the points he had made and from which it was clear to everybody that he certainly had not claimed the amendment achieved all we wanted.

A further attempt was made to negotiate with Mrs. Dorries, concentrating mainly on ensuring that the counselling work of LIFE and CARE would not be blocked. Finally, only a few days before the debate, she agreed to adopt the amended clause – by which time it was far too late to organise any kind of grass roots lobby urging MPs to back the amendment. But even that was not the final act in the drama.

Anybody watching the debate must have wondered what was happening to make MPs – looking for all the world like Epsom Racecourse Bookmakers – start to tick-tack each other. However, at one stage during her overlong speech (which allowed hardly any Pro-Life MP to speak) it appeared that Mrs. Dorries was going to introduce the original amendment which Pro-Life MPs had made clear they would not support. This was cleared up by colleagues around her – and a little more tick-tacking gave the “go-ahead” to Pro-Life MPs!

However, by that time a very high number of groups and MPs were more than a little tired of Mrs. Dorries. A considerable number of sympathetic MPs abstained from the vote and a number actually voted against her.

I personally can see no justification for them voting against her; the amendment simply sought to sever the links between money-making clinics (whether they describe themselves as charities or not) and counselling services. It certainly did not achieve what RTL had wanted, but it satisfied the needs of both LIFE and CARE. The empty gesture by SPUC writing to all MPs urging them to vote against the amendment was ludicrous, adding a farcical note to what was already a ridiculous scenario. It did nothing to help the situation and simply gave pro-abortion MPs grounds for ridiculing the lobby. It certainly did not influence any true Pro-Lifer.

However, not only did the whole Dorries campaign dismay her parliamentary colleagues and Pro-Life groups, it also gave Andrew Lansley (the Health Secretary) the opportunity to introduce to the Conservative Party  whipping by the back door on a Pro-Life issue. In a letter to all Conservative MPs, Ann Milton (Mr Lansley’s junior minister) made it clear that the Department of Health was opposed to Mrs. Dorries’s amendment. In comparison, previous Conservative Government Ministers have explained reasons why the Department of Health might be concerned about amendments: they have never before expressed opposition as Department policy. Surely, Department policy means Government policy. Moreover, we have heard from a number of MPs that some of the Conservative Whips used the letter in seeking to persuade them to vote against the Dorries amendment.

To my mind, this can only be described as a hole-in-the-corner method of back-door whipping.  It hardly reflects the previous integrity of the Party on the issue. For over forty years, the Conservative Party has maintained a proud tradition – protecting a free conscience vote on all votes to do with Life issues. Thankfully, the Rt. Hon. Dr. Liam Fox MP (the Defence Secretary) and Stewart Jackson MP both issued statements making it public that they had no intention of following Mrs. Milton. Other Government Ministers, such as John Hayes and Alistair Burt, stood with them.

However, we need to go back in history when discussing Mr. Lansley.

Before the General Election, Right To Life (with CARE and LIFE) sent a joint letter to David Cameron (then Opposition Leader) expressing our concern about the manner in which Mr. Lansley was abusing his position as Shadow Health Minister, in promoting abortion on demand and calling for a change in the law to allow abortion on the agreement of only one doctor (instead of two as at present).  We reminded Mr. Cameron that previous Conservative Governments had always held a neutral position on abortion amendments.

In his reply, he defended Andrew Lansley on the grounds that the Conservative party always maintained a free vote on Life issues and assuring us that the party had most certainly not changed its position: Mr Lansley – he told us – was as much entitled to exercise his right of conscience as was any Conservative MP. We accepted that.

However, Anne Milton’s letter to all Conservative MPs changed the situation radically. It  made clear that the Department of Health was opposed to Mrs. Dorries’s amendment.

In comparison, previous Conservative Government Ministers have explained reasons why the Department of Health might be concerned about amendments: they have never before expressed opposition as Department policy – and, surely Department policy means government policy. Moreover, we have been told by a number of MPs that some of the Tory Whips used the letter in seeking to persuade them to vote against Dorries. It was a “first-time” for Tory Whips and hardly reflects the previous integrity of the Party on the issue.

The only time in the past that a Conservative Government whipped on an abortion amendment was in 1990. A group of Labour MPs sought to introduce an amendment to the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Bill (now Act) to extend the 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland.  Consequently, the Northern Ireland MPs of all parties asked for a joint meeting with Lady (then Mrs.) Thatcher when they stressed that all the political groups, the churches and a huge majority of the people in Northern Ireland, were opposed to the current abortion law. They urged that it should be left to the people of the Province to decide whether they wanted to change the law or not.

Lady Thatcher said it was the first occasion on which she had known the NI Parties to unite on any issue. Consequently, out of deference to the democratic rights of the people of the Province, the Government adopted an official policy opposing the Labour amendment and Conservative MPs were whipped. However, it was perfectly straightforward; unlike the back-door whipping we saw on the Dorries amendment.

Margaret Thatcher was never my “bowl of goulash”, if you understand what I mean! Moreover, she certainly was not sympathetic to the pro-life cause. She voted for the Abortion Act in 1967 and subsequently always supported it. However, to be just, she had a great respect for the conscience vote of her MPs – and never allowed any Ministers or their officers to conduct themselves as we saw on the Dorries campaign. In addition, although she was straightforward about her views, at no time did she ever seek to influence her MPs by announcing how she would vote on an amendment. (As a footnote, I would add that in her memoirs and in speaking publicly, Lady Thatcher has said that she considers she made a tragic mistake in supporting liberal abortion.)

The Conservative Party conscience vote on life issues continued to be protected throughout the Leadership of John Major, William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and, even, Michael Howard. It is tragic that Mr. Cameron seems to be changing the party tradition. It is essential that people write to him expressing concern about the Conservative Conscience vote on Life issues. That we must seek to protect at all costs.

"A Gigantic Slaughterhouse ..."

Two giants bestriding the scientific world stand out in my memories of the 80s and 90s when we were fighting the legalisation of the use of the human embryo as a guinea pig. They are the late Professors Jérôme Lejeune and Erwin Chargaff. How right their predictions were on the brutalisation of society’s attitudes towards the tiniest human (the human embryo) can be seen from the data published as a result of Parliamentary Questions tabled by Lord David Alton (see pg. 131) in the Lords before the summer recess.

The replies show that since 1991 when the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act came into force, 3,144,386 embryos have been created in UK laboratories. A total of 1,455,832 embryos were discarded in the course of treatment. 101,605 were given for research in destructive experiments. 764,311 were frozen for later use. And I am quite sure that is only the tip of the iceberg.

So far as the creation and destruction of human embryos are concerned, any that are deemed to be under par in anyway are simply thrown away without being recorded. During the same period from 1991 to 2010 only 94,090 embryos have been successfully implanted into women resulting in live births, demonstrating that at least 32 embryos are created for every one live baby born. The answers also exposed that 155 ‘admixed’ embryos (animal/human) have been produced, in the last three years since the 2008 Human Fertilisation Embryology Act came into force. This legalised the creation of a variety of hybrids, including an animal egg fertilised by a human sperm; ‘cybrids’, in which a human nucleus is implanted into an animal cell; and ‘chimeras’, in which human cells are mixed with animal embryos. The story made front page banner headlines in the Daily Mail – but it was no surprise to pro-lifers – like David Alton – who fought against both the 1990 and 2007 Acts when they were debated in Parliament. As long ago as 1987, it was predicted by the Scientific Advisory Committee to the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group (APPPLG).

Professor Erwin Chargaff, an Austrian Jew who escaped the Nazi tyranny, predicted what would happen if we adopted the recommendations of the Warnock Committee on Human Fertilisation & Embryology... using words which make the headline for this blog. Chargaff was described in the Guardian’s obituary as “one of the giants of the world of biochemistry”. He was without doubt one of the foremost scientists of the twentieth century. I first heard of him when I received a telephone call from Professor Jérôme Lejeune from Paris stressing I should contact him. Jérôme Lejeune had first gained international fame in 1958 when he discovered that the Trisomy 21 genetic defect was responsible for Down’s syndrome, the first-ever genetic disease to be identified. He went on to make many further discoveries. He also was a world name – and I am proud to say that I had known him for many years.

When in the ‘eighties we formed the Scientific Advisory Committee to the All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group he was one of the first people we invited and he accepted without hesitation. Their first task was to combat the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Report (1984), in reality a pathetic document which abounded in baseless claims and promises – but held overwhelming influence. Professor Lejeune had telephoned to tell me of a paper he had just read by Erwin Chargaff which completely opposed the use of IVF and the use of the human embryo as a  guinea pig. “You must ask him to join us”, I was told, “I regard him as one of the greatest biochemists ever. They cannot ignore him”. 

“They”, of course, were the public and international politicians. Chargaff was best known for his work in genetics, involving research into the chemical composition of DNA. His discoveries provided the groundwork for the greatest discovery of 20th-century biology – formulating the model of DNA, showing how genetic inheritance could pass from one generation to the next. It was for this that Francis Crick and James Watson won the Nobel Prize.

To this day, there is considerable controversy as to why Chargaff  was not included in the award (a fact noted in the Guardian obituary). In just the same way, Lejeune – often described as the “father of genetics” – was also denied the Nobel Prize. However, both men were far too open about the brutality developing in science and medicine and the arrogance of many scientists ever to have been considered by the Nobel Prize Committee. From the 1950s onwards, Chargaff had become increasingly outspoken about the manner in which molecular biology was “running riot and doing things that could never be justified”.

He believed that it was dangerous when “humans believe that the world is a machine, even assuming that humans can have full knowledge of its workings”. He warned that “the technology of genetic engineering poses a greater threat to the world than the advent of nuclear technology. An irreversible attack on the biosphere is something so unheard of, so unthinkable to previous generations, that I only wish that mine had not been guilty of it”. Lejeune’s views were also completely opposed  to the scientific elite of the day. Many of his dearest and closest friends were among his Down’s Syndrome patients and their families. The idea that abortion provided an answer to Down’s Syndrome was anathema to him as was the idea of using human embryos as guinea pigs to find a treatment.

At the time we first contacted him, Erwin Chargaff was Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry at Columbia University and I was able to track down his telephone number in New York. He was then in his early ‘eighties and had just recovered from a serious illness. He would do anything to help us he told me but in coming to London he needed his wife to come with him as he was still too weak after his illness to travel alone. I will always remember his words: “I have seen it all before, my dear”. He and his wife, Vera, were small physically. Yet, they struck us all as giants in their determination to defend the human embryo. He was an Austrian Jew and had emigrated from his homeland to America at the onset of the Nazi era. His work in biochemistry won him many international awards, including the Pasteur Medal (1949) and the National Medal of Science (1974).

For all their achievements both Chargaff and Lejeune were men of great humility. Professor Lejeune was a devout Catholic – but I have no idea about the beliefs of Professor Chargaff: I know he was of Jewish origin but whether he practiced or came to any other faith I cannot say. However, I do know that both men stood in awe of the wonder of human life which they regarded as a great mystery. They also regarded embryos as much their brothers and sisters as the rest of us. The fact that the embryo was so tiny inspired greater awe in them rather than diminishing their respect and care. That the embryonic Einstein (no bigger than a dot) contained every attribute  necessary to make his achievements they both found overwhelming.

In comparison, when Crick and Watson won the Nobel Prize for describing DNA one would have thought they were responsible for its creation rather than unraveling part of  a great mystery. Another Nobel Prize Winner, Dr. Robert G. Edwards, the doctor who developed the in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) technique, was equally arrogant as well as being very crude. Rather than evolving the technology to enable the sperm to fertilise an ovum outside the body he behaved as though he had actually created and invented life itself. Like Crick and Watson, he made it clear he could see nothing wrong in pouring embryos down the sink, aborting babies on whatever ground – and if there might be anything wrong with them – well, get rid of them and start again. In developing the procedure he practiced using his own sperm to fertilise ova and then poured the products away.

The Scientific Advisory Committee to the APPPLG were convinced that the prestigious journal, Nature, would not ignore a paper on the possible dangers and consequences of IVF and the use of the human embryo as a guinea pig, written by Erwin Chargaff. They were right. His paper, Engineering a Molecular Nightmare, was published May 21st, 1987. We used it very widely and every MP received a copy of a booklet published by the APPPLG, Upholding Human Dignity: Ethical Alternatives to Human Embryo Research to which the three contributors were Professor Lejeune, Professor Chargaff and Dr. John McLean (an English doctor of standing).

Professor Chargaff’s contribution was the reproduction of his paper from Nature – a quite deliberate act, planned from the beginning. It meant that the crude elements dominating the lobby wanting the human embryo as a guinea pig, could not, in effect, attack a journal of such eminence. Otherwise, there is no doubt that they would have been abused in every possible measure – regardless of what Lejeune and Chargaff had achieved throughout their lives. Nonetheless, they were ignored by a majority in Parliament who listened instead to the buffooneries of Robert Edwards, and the late Professor Ann McLaren who invented the term “pre-embryo” to bamboozle the public into believing that up to fourteen days the human embryo could not qualify as a member of the human family.

In his paper, Chargaff pointed out that the giant strides science had made in modern times were “composed of an infinity of tiny steps”. He expressed concern regarding unknown consequences of the process of  in-vitro fertilisation on the embryo: “In the normal conception the female egg is confronted with a very large number of viable spermatozoa”, he wrote. “FertilisatIon could then appear as a purely random event, or, alternatively, it could be looked upon as a process in which the egg selects the sperm cell with which to fuse. This is not a metaphysical quibble, though it may be an as yet unanswerable question...”

Whether it is an unanswerable question we have no idea. The powers that be have never bothered to do any long-term investigations. Although we know that the incidence of disability is higher in IVF babies, no research has ever been conducted to find out what other consequences there might be: it could be generations before we find out anything. “Helping a few couples condemned to childlessness towards getting a child may strike the obstetrical cytologist as such a laudable step”, he wrote, “but we can see the beginning of human husbandry, of industrial breeding factories.  ... Who can deny the scientific interest attaching to the production of chimaeras, to the study of human embryonic growth in an animal uterus? ... What I see coming is a gigantic slaughterhouse, a molecular Auschwitz, in which valuable enzymes, hormones and so on will be extracted instead of gold teeth.”

However, as the very reason the scientific world wanted to get its hands on embryonic human beings was to cannibalise them, their claims as to the miracle cures they would perform became more and more extravagant in order to blind the public. Newspapers and politicians lapped up their stories without ever checking the facts. Even today, the scientists involved in embryo production make exactly the same promises: their work will find cures for the incurable. Yet, in the last 23 years, the relentless and destructive experiments on human embryos have produced not one treatment or cure of any disease. Neither has the equally destructive work in producing human embryos for stem cells. There have been around 75 treatments developed as a result of stem cell work.

In every case – without exception – real progress has been achieved through the use of adult stem cells;  stem cells developed from adult skin or other  tissue or from umbilical cord blood – all of which can be done without any controversy or any form of abusive treatment of human life. The latest revelations have come almost at exactly the same time as a committee of scientists warned of “a nightmare ‘Planet of the Apes’ scenario”, in which work on human-animal creations goes too far.

Last year, more than one million experiments were carried out on genetically modified animals – mostly mice and fish carrying human DNA. As a result, the Academy of Medical Scientists set up a review to examine the growing number of any such experiments in which scientists add human genes or tissue to animals. Their Report called for a new body of experts within the Home Office to monitor the experiments. The Report’s co-author is Professor Martin Bobrow, a medical geneticist at Cambridge University, who said: “Society needs to set rules before scientists begin experiments that the public would find unacceptable. We are trying to get this out in the open before anything has happened.” Martin Bobrow has served for many years on various committees of the Medical Research Council and from the late ‘eighties was certainly among those who opposed Lejeune and Chargaff. He opposed all their attempts to prevent scientists from using the human embryo as a guinea pig. He is quite definitely in the ‘liberal’ camp. For him to call “Halt!” – I find somewhat frightening, and cannot help wondering just what has alerted him and his friends on the Academy of Medical Scientists.

Moreover, the statement in their report that most of the experiments raise no ethical or legal concerns reminds me somewhat of George Bernard Shaw’s quotation: “The one thing you learn from experience is that you do not learn from experience.” However, so far as the pro-life movement is concerned we should rather keep in mind Abraham Lincoln’s summary:  “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time – but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”. Today, each of us has a duty. We have to collect the evidence David Alton has given us through his parliamentary questions. We have to present it to our MPs – and we have to deliberately present any further evidence to them. We also have to bring to their attention the warnings from Professor Bobrow and his committee of liberals.

We know that we will not convince everybody – but in the ultimate we should at least try to convince a majority of  our MPs if only on the grounds of  the millions of pounds being wasted on so-called research in the present economic climate. Perhaps respect for human life will come later and bring with it love for our embryonic brothers and sisters.