’David Cameron Wants Abortion Limit Lowered’ toots today's Telegraph – not a story with which any of the other broadsheets have seen fit to lead. You may have been wondering if there's some sort of vote going on about the subject. Technically not, but there's this small matter of the Human Embryology And Fertilisation Bill which is heading towards the Commons, and the pro-life (or pro-forced pregnancy, depending on your viewpoint) politicians who are trying to shoehorn the abortion debate into it.

The Bill, which is already gathering controversy for its proposal to allow the growing of human cells in DNA-stripped animal eggs and to permit IVF without the involvement of a biological father, will be open to a free vote if it ends up including any amendments to abortion law. Cameron and others want to cut the legal limit for termination, which currently stands at 24 weeks, claiming higher survival rates for these tiny fetuses.

The trouble is, the stats they're hanging their hopes on aren't the most honest. Bad Science avenger Ben Goldacre investigated the numbers everyone's bandying about in the Guardian last October, pointing out that the results have been fudged. Bigger, more exhaustive studies have shown that, er, actually there hasn't been an increase in survival rates.

So why renegotiate the law because of some deceptive numbers compiled by a single pro-life doctor, Prof John Wyatt of the Christian Medical Fellowship? After all, as the PM's spokesman pointed out, “the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have said they do not believe there is a case for changing the time limits for abortion.” You'd think they'd be pretty authoritative, wouldn't you?