There is a moral divide between freedom of speech and deliberately intimidating women at a difficult time – as we found when protesters waved their banners of dismembered foetuses at women as they entered our British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) clinic in London last month. But at the very least, a pro-life protester does exactly what it says on the tin. There is a transparency, if not necessarily an honesty, which we involved in abortion services are starting to appreciate.

The same cannot always be said for some of our politicians. There is a consensus that an all-out assault on abortion would be unfeasible in this country, given the weight of public opinion in favour of a woman's right to choose. However, other tactics have successfully been employed by the anti-abortion lobby in the US which are slowly finding their way over here.

"Right to know" and "informed consent" bills have been a key component of recent anti-choice legislation at state level. Do they sound familiar? Yes, because they are being spearheaded by a group of MPs, including Nadine Dorries and Frank Field, who argue that women considering abortion should receive counselling from an organisation not itself involved in terminations. The BPAS, they say, has a vested interest in withholding information from women and pushing them into procedures they do not really want. The same MPs argue that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists should be stripped of its role providing evidence-based guidance for women requesting abortion, because it has doctors who provide abortion on the panel.

The MPs' intention is pernicious, deliberately seeking to undermine women's confidence in their own decision-making and their trust in the organisations that offer support and services. The beneficiaries of their proposed amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill are likely to be the crisis pregnancy centres to which we know some GPs are already diverting women who are considering abortion.

Many of these centres fall under CareConfidential, a network with links to Philippa Stroud – Iain Duncan Smith's special adviser, who has received plaudits from the Tory right. CareConfidential is supported by Care, a Christian organisation committed to the preservation of life from fertilisation.

There may well be great, non-directive counsellors working in these centres, which are usually attached to a local church. However, the fact that many of them make no mention of their Christian affiliations or their view on abortion is troubling. Women have a "right to know" from whom they are seeking advice. Many women may well appreciate Christian support at a time of need. But transparency is key. At BPAS, we do not hide what we believe.

The flourishing of these church-based pregnancy counselling centres fits almost too neatly into the "big society" agenda. We should have no problem with faith-based organisations reaching out to those in need: but before they are incorporated into public services, we have to be clear we have shared aims. The same point applies to public health minister Anne Milton's decision to include Life on the Department of Health's new sexual health advisory body. There is much debate to be had within the field of sexual health services as to best policy and practice, but a starting point should be that women are able to make choices.

Life should not be muzzled – far from it. We welcome public debate about abortion – in fact maybe now is the time for more of it. Abortion is not a shameful secret that should simply be tolerated. We should be proud of the services which women in this country are legally able to access, and of the fact that women, in planning the timing and size of their families, can play a full role in society.

• This footnote was added on 10 August 2011: The campaign group 40 Days for Life, which organised a vigil outside the British Pregnancy Advisory Service during the period referred to in the first paragraph of this article, has asked us to clarify that it does not produce or condone the use of distressing images on banners. It says: 'We would like to categorically state that 40 Days for Life have never used images of aborted foetuses. A particular feature of 40 Days for Life is precisely that we do not use any graphic images of abortion.'