I could, I suppose, be accused of having an unhealthy obsession with Nadine Dorries. But then again, she is the one who has an unhealthy obsession with what goes on between my legs and inside my uterus – so I suppose it’s only fair.
Dorries’ proposals to target abstinence education at girls, and well as her and Frank Field’s move to introduce additional mandatory counselling before a woman can have an abortion are some recent examples of the brand of small government she champions – small enough to fit in my bedroom. What is even more chilling is that both these proposals are cleverly disguised in a “caring for and empowering women” rhetoric. Here is Dorries on abstinence education:

I want to place an emphasis on girls. I do. It’s girls who get pregnant, girls who lose their education, girls who are left to bring up a child on benefits, girls who reach old age in poverty, girls who are subjected to a string of guesting fathers as they throw in the towel in a life of welfare misery, girls who seek abortion, girls who suffer the consequences of abortion, girls who are subjected to the increased medical risks of giving birth at a young age, girls who have little control over condom use, girls who are pressurised, girls who are targeted by lad mag marketing, it’s seven year old girls Primark made alluring padded bikinis for, girls who are targeted by paedophiles.

And again, on abortion:

We are no longer chanting the ‘right on’ mantra of the elitist university graduates of the 1980’s. Real women, those who are not motivated by political ideology, want real choice and the last thirteen years just haven’t given them that.

I would like to make one thing clear: Nadine Dorries’ agenda is about as far from an empowering, pro-woman agenda as we can get. And frankly, it’s about as far from a pro-children agenda as we can get.
There are subtle differences between teaching girls to say no and teaching all kids to make an informed choice on when they are ready to have sex and have constructive conversations about it with their partners. Something which struck me when doing some high-level reading on abstinence education is that success tends to get measured based on how many teens went on to have or not to have sex over a period of time following the education programme. This then gets compared to the same figure for teenagers who’ve had more comprehensive sex education. This says a lot about the real goals of promoters of abstinence. They may talk about preventing teenage pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted infections, but all they’re really interested in is enforcing traditional gender roles and views of the family: one man, one woman, married and only having sex for the purposes of procreation.
There is nothing wrong with having sex – no, not even with teenagers having sex. As long as the sex is consensual, respectful and safe, it is a perfectly natural, human thing to do, and discovering your sexuality is a part of growing up. It is the “consensual, respectful and safe” parts of this we should be focusing on in order to empower girls and young women, not the “sex is icky and damaging” message that Dorries wants to push, which empowers no one.
On abortion, too, Nadine Dorries is attempting to reposition herself as empowering, pro-woman, pro-choice – as long as your choice is not to terminate a pregnancy. Yet putting up more hurdles for women who wish to access abortion services (they already get counselling) only delays the procedure, increasing the risk of complications for women. Instead of empowering women, such tactics endanger our health.
But here’s the real catch: I want every child to be an actively wanted child. I want Mum and Dad (or Mum and Mum, or Dad and Dad, or just Mum or just Dad) to have sat down and talked about it and decided that now is the right time for them to have a child, that they are emotionally, physically and financially^[1] in a position to raise a child, that it’s the right thing for them and that child. Talking a woman into wanting a child is not, and cannot be in the interests of either the woman or the child. To me, that’s a no-brainer. And therefore Nadine Dorries’ approach by definition cannot be either pro-woman or pro-child.
On Monday, I attended a not very secret meeting in London to discuss how we counter Nadine Dorries’ anti-choice, anti-women agenda. It was a very productive session, and I am very much looking forward to the action that will come out of it. One thing I made clear at the meeting is that we cannot afford for this to be a campaign exclusive to London. We need to make it clear that the majority in this country reject the Dorries agenda^[2]. We need to regain control of this debate everywhere, not just in London, and we need to make every single one of our MPs understand that women’s right to choose is not up for negotiation, and neither is our children’s right to fact-based, impartial sex education. If anyone in the Northeast is interested in this area, or already doing something, then please give me shout. Let’s get our voices heard.

[1] And I don’t mean David Cameron style “only the middle classes should breed” financial situations, just that people should at least have thought about it.

[2] 75% of people in this country believe women should have the right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term. And one in three women will have an abortion at some point in her life.