I just happened to review the House of Commons voting record of Claire Perry MP (‘Conservative’, Devizes) earlier today. One of Perry’s votes, against the Bruce Amendment (February 2015), reminded me of something Perry said a while back and led me to check if she’d said one thing and done another.
At the BPAS fringe at the 2013 ‘Conservative’ Party Conference, Claire Perry expressed unequivocal opposition to gender selective abortion (I was present), however, in 2015, when presented with the opportunity to vote for the Bruce (Sex-Selective) Abortion Amendment – which, had it succeeded, would’ve made gender abortions explicitly illegal – Claire Perry voted against protecting unborn baby girls from gender abortion.
Logic and common sense are obliged to say that an MP with a publicly-stated opposition to gender abortions would vote for an explicit ban on gender abortions – not against such a ban. Why then did Claire Perry tell me she was firmly against gender abortions in 2013 but then go and vote against an explicit ban on gender abortions in 2015?
It may be that Claire Perry has some way of rationalising and justifying her conduct – and I’d be interested to hear her give her excuses in a formal statement – but it’s clear to me that she said one thing and did another. Why?