The blog I wrote earlier last week commenting on Ruth Kelly's resignation from Government has been picked up by the Catholic newspaper, The Universe. I am disapointed by the quotes in that article by Jim Dobbin MP and Stephen Pound MP.
Kelly critic should sacked by Labour - MP
It is a real shame that The Universe did not research or report their story accurately enough to include the contents of the blog I wrote just a few days later, which congratulated Downing Street for their excellent plans to end the 300 year old exclusion of Catholics from the throne.
I strongly repeat that I am not anti-Catholic, prejudiced against any religion or have in anyway ever sought to intentionally offend anyone.
The Embryology Bill is an extremely important piece of legislation, to women and their families. It is contained in the Labour manifesto on which the party was elected this term.
Showing posts with label Embryology Bill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Embryology Bill. Show all posts
Thursday, 2 October 2008
Tuesday, 8 July 2008
EMBRYOLOGY BILL
In May I wrote an article for the Guardian's Comment is Free website designed to spark debate about the issues surrounding the role of religion in the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Bill.
Needless to say I am not and have never been anti-Catholic. I do believe that all organisations seeking to lobby Government - whether it be big business, NGOs, professional lobbyists or religious groups -should be subject to proper scrutiny and debate.
However, looking through some of the press coverage resulting from my article, I've become concerned that my views have been misrepresented. This is particularly the case in relation to Conor McGinn who has resigned his position as vice-chair of Young Labour seemingly in reaction to my comments.
In the sprit of openness, I've decided to compile a list of media articles making reference me or my original article.
With the exception of BBC Radio Ulster, none of the journalists contacted me in advance of publication to check my views.
As you'll see there are some serious misquotes - nowhere have I questioned the right of Catholics to hold public office.
I am pleased to engage in vigorous debate. But it serves no benefit to misrepresent anybody's views. Let's engage in a debate based on the facts.
TIMELINE OF MEDIA COVERAGE
MARY HONEYBALL MEP AND CONOR MCGINN
20 May
Guardian Comment Is Free
‘Cardinals Sins’ published by Mary Honeyball
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/20/cardinalssins
Cardinals' sins
Politics and piety are becoming increasingly entangled as the human fertilisation and embryology bill passes through parliament. But democracy and religion do not mix. Pious pro-life Tory MP Nadine Dorries claims her high-profile campaign to reduce the abortion limit is non-religious and non-political; according to Sunny Hundal, she is in fact backed by Christian Concern for our Nation and the Conservative Christian Fellowship.
But it is Gordon Brown's kowtowing to threats of resignation from three Catholic government ministers - Ruth Kelly, the transport secretary, Des Browne, the defence secretary and Paul Murphy, the Welsh secretary - that has undermined his strength. In allowing a free vote on three of the bill's most important clauses (selecting and screening embryos for diseases and "saviour siblings"; allowing the creation of hybrid embryos from animal and human cells; and obviating the need for a father in IVF treatment), the PM has failed to protect the rights of the general public, over half of whom support the three causes, according to a recent Times poll.
Notwithstanding the result of the vote tonight, Brown put the interests of the Christian few over the rights of the many. Most people obviously disagree with a Catholic morality that puts the rights of the non-extant over those of the living.
Gordon Brown's failure to stand firm flies in the face of Department of Health (DoH) advice that the bill is essential to improve the technologies for assisting human reproduction and conducting high level research into finding cures for various diseases. The DoH also stresses that the bill is necessary to maintain the UK's position as a world leader in the science of embryology. It would not help our economy if we were to lose out in the same way as the US under George Bush, where embryonic stem cell research was denied federal funding nearly eight years ago.
Brown's about-turn has led many to conclude that the government's front benches are becoming increasingly religion-led. One Times reader this week pointed out that he had never before thought about "the religion of candidates for public office" but in future may not take such an "enlightened" approach if faith is given such sway in parliamentary votes. The idea that British voters may look closely at candidates' religious affiliations when choosing their MP raises fears that the more conservative style of religious voting seen in parts of Europe may come to Britain.
The vice-like grip of Catholicism holds fast across large parts of the continent. Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland are just some of the countries in Europe that have been subjected to interference by meddling cardinals. Abortion is still outlawed in Ireland and was only recently legalised in Portugal. Anti-abortion campaigns have, almost without exception, been led from the pulpit.
Catholicism has never taken a back seat; it has always actively interfered in democratic politics. In 2006 Pope Benedict castigated Catholic politicians in Canada for voting for gay rights and Cardinal Keith O'Brien, leader of Scotland's Catholics, is alleged to have compared same-sex relationships to paedophilia. The same Cardinal O'Brien is now accusing the human fertilisation and embryology bill of challenging "standards by which we have lived throughout our lives and by which Christians have lived for the past 2,000 years".
The European parliament has, fortunately, made a stand against some of this Christian fundamentalism. In a dramatic exercise of power in 2004, MEPs opposed the appointment of Rocco Buttiglione, nominated as a European commissioner by Silvio Berlusconi. Set to take up the justice, freedom and security portfolio, Buttiglione enraged the European parliament justice committee with his views on the role of women and his belief that homosexuality is a sin put forward during his confirmation hearings. The Italian government eventually withdrew his nomination as commissioner, due in large part to pressure from MEPs.
Given a similar opportunity, I wonder whether the Commons would have stood in the way of Ruth Kelly's appointment as minister for equality. Her strong religious beliefs obviously made her an inappropriate choice for this job, which involved standing up for the rights of homosexuals. Kelly famously refused to deny or confirm whether she thought homosexuality was a sin on Five Live in 2006.
Ruth Kelly's contention, supported by other religious politicians, that she can separate her private morals from public policy does not stand up to scrutiny. During the passage of the legislation to ban discrimination in the provision of goods and services in 2007, she is reputed to have fought hard for Catholic adoption agencies to opt out of the requirement to place children with same sex couples. When it came to the crunch, her Catholic faith won the day. Should devout Catholics such as Kelly, Browne and Murphy be allowed on the government front bench in the light of their predilection to favour the Pope's word above the government's?
Politicians are voted in to represent their electorates. People who vote for me and my colleagues expect us to further the interests of the public at large, not those of any particular religion, church, mosque, synagogue, temple or indeed any other interest group. We go against the democratic foundations of our country at our peril.
30 May
The Times Online
Faith News
NIB reporting that the vice-chair of Young Labour has resigned after particularly objecting to Mary’s language in comment is free piece.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4035217.ece
The Catholic Herald
“Labour activist quits post over anti-Catholicism”
Quotes Conor McGinn heavily including about Mary Honeyball “This type of sectarian diatribe makes me wonder whether a prejudice we all thought was long consigned to the past is slowly re-emerging.”
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000291.shtml
6 June
Tribune
John Street’s Diary
Connor (sic) McGinn…has quit his post in disgust over what he perceives as the party’s anti-Catholic stance. He was particularly upset at the suggestion from Mary Honeyball MEP that Ruth Kelly’s strong religious beliefs “…obviously made her an inappropriate choice” for the job of Communities Secretary.
13 June
Total Catholic
“Labour’s anti-Catholicism raised with PM”
http://www.totalcatholic.com/tc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32:brown-faces-anti-catholic-concern&catid=14:uk-and-ireland&Itemid=34
16 June
New Statesman
“Whiff of anti-popery”
Written by Paul Donovan who also writes weekly columns for the Irish Post and Catholic weekly the Universe. He also contributes to the Guardian’s Comment is Free site, Tribune and the Morning Star.
Again article heavily quotes Conor McGinn and no response from Mary Honeyball was sought.
McGinn describes Honeyball's language as harking back to the days of Guy Fawkes. "Imagine substituting the words Jew or Muslim for Catholic in Mary Honeyball's comments - there would have been a furious reaction," says McGinn, whose stance resonates with several Catholic Labour MP.
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/06/anti-catholic-labour-party
Labour Home (blog)
“Is the Labour party anti-catholic?”
Is the Labour Party anti-Catholic? Conor McGinn, the vice chairman of Young Labour has resigned his post in protest at the party's alleged anti-Catholic prejudice and its hostility towards the pro-life movement.
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/6/16/85046/5274
18 June
BBC Radio Ulster
Talk Back
Debate with Conor McGinn and Mary Honeyball on the separation of religion and politics and the influence of the Catholic Church. We were contacted by the show. The researcher asked us to defend our case and we were told Conor McGinn was going to speak on the show about the reasons for his resignation whether we appeared or not.
19 June
Labour Home (blog)
“Labour MP decries Labour anti Catholicism”
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/6/18/1919/41752
20 June
Tribune
“Religious persecution may drive us out of the Labour Party”
Comment piece by Conor McGinn
Cites Mary Honeyball’s comment piece as “the most vicious of recent attacks on Catholics in the Labour party”
23 June
New Statesman
“Faith and reason”
Mary Honeyball responds in a letter accusing Paul Donovan’s piece of “…misconstruing the pro-democracy message of my article…I am not anti-Catholic but anti any religion that attempts to coerce or control parliament by exploiting the religious convictions of MPs.”
Total Catholic
“Labour’s ‘anti-Catholicism’ raised with PM”
“Church’s social welfare work threatened”
Conor McGinn quoted discussing emails requesting his phone number from Mary Honeyball.
http://www.totalcatholic.com/tc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77:churchs-social-welfare-work-threatened&catid=14:uk-and-ireland&Itemid=34
Theo’s Blog
Posting starts: “Shocked to see local MEP Mary Honeyball’s statements in her article…”
http://regentsparklabour.blogspot.com/2008/06/shocked-to-see-local-mep-mary.html
26 June
Dolphinarium (blog)
“Venomballs”
Leaked email to Prospect/Fabian Review posted on blogsite
http://dolphinarium.blogspot.com/2008/06/venomballs.html
27 June
Islington Tribune
“Activist claims Labour has anti-Catholic bias”
In the piece Conor McGinn says“..an article written by Mary Honeyball MEP made his position “untenable”.”.
http://www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/2008/062708/news062708_09.html
2 July
Political Betting online (comment)
“What Price the Gordon Comeback?”
Extract from 171st comment in response to posting: With that Catholic youth leader resigning over anto-Catholic bias ( http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/6/16/85046/5274 ) and Mary Honeyball MEP writing her piece in the Guardian ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/20/cardinalssins ) I think any deliberate mention of a policy issue such as the HF&E bill by Cardinal O’Brian will be a massive psychic wink to the Catholic vote that Labour is no longer their party. by Morus July 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 am
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/07/01/what-price-the-gordon-come-back/#comment-712304
4 July
Tribune
“Condemn these Catholic tastes for intimidating those who disagree”
Letter from Mary Honeyball in response to Conor McGinn’s previous comment piece.
Islington Tribune/Camden News Journal/Camden Gazette
Mary Honeyball responds with letter to “Activist claims Labour has anti-Catholic bias” article.
Theo’s Blog
“No to Da Vinci Code politics”
Article starts: “Mary Honeyball’s bizarre and illadvised crusade against Catholics in the cabinet continues apace in today’s Tribune….”
http://regentsparklabour.blogspot.com/2008/07/no-to-da-vinci-code-politics.html
5 July
Political Betting.com (article)
“Will the Catholics abandon Labour?”
“…with the resignation letter of Conor McGinn (vice-chairman of Young Labour) claiming an ‘anti-catholic’ hostility in the party, and a recent article by Labour MEP Mary Honeyball that asked whether Catholics should be allowed to hold governmental office, there is much discussion amongst Catholics as to whether this natural loyalty to Labour is something that should be perpetuated.”
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/07/05/will-catholics-abandon-labour/
8 July
Daily Telegraph (comment piece)
Article by James MacMillan "Why Gordon Brown will lose Glasgow East". Mary Honeyball's "Cardinal Sins" article quoted out of context - "should devout Catholics such as Ruth Kelly, Des Browne, and Paul Murphy be allowed on the front bench?" The writer then infers - "we have to assume that there is no place any more for Catholics in New Labour."
The "Cardinal Sins" piece about the Embryology Bill and previous government legislation to ban discrimination in the provision of goods and services actually said, "Should devout Catholics such as Kelly, Browne and Murphy be allowed on the government front bench in the light of their predilection to favour the Pope's word above the government's?"
Needless to say I am not and have never been anti-Catholic. I do believe that all organisations seeking to lobby Government - whether it be big business, NGOs, professional lobbyists or religious groups -should be subject to proper scrutiny and debate.
However, looking through some of the press coverage resulting from my article, I've become concerned that my views have been misrepresented. This is particularly the case in relation to Conor McGinn who has resigned his position as vice-chair of Young Labour seemingly in reaction to my comments.
In the sprit of openness, I've decided to compile a list of media articles making reference me or my original article.
With the exception of BBC Radio Ulster, none of the journalists contacted me in advance of publication to check my views.
As you'll see there are some serious misquotes - nowhere have I questioned the right of Catholics to hold public office.
I am pleased to engage in vigorous debate. But it serves no benefit to misrepresent anybody's views. Let's engage in a debate based on the facts.
TIMELINE OF MEDIA COVERAGE
MARY HONEYBALL MEP AND CONOR MCGINN
20 May
Guardian Comment Is Free
‘Cardinals Sins’ published by Mary Honeyball
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/20/cardinalssins
Cardinals' sins
Politics and piety are becoming increasingly entangled as the human fertilisation and embryology bill passes through parliament. But democracy and religion do not mix. Pious pro-life Tory MP Nadine Dorries claims her high-profile campaign to reduce the abortion limit is non-religious and non-political; according to Sunny Hundal, she is in fact backed by Christian Concern for our Nation and the Conservative Christian Fellowship.
But it is Gordon Brown's kowtowing to threats of resignation from three Catholic government ministers - Ruth Kelly, the transport secretary, Des Browne, the defence secretary and Paul Murphy, the Welsh secretary - that has undermined his strength. In allowing a free vote on three of the bill's most important clauses (selecting and screening embryos for diseases and "saviour siblings"; allowing the creation of hybrid embryos from animal and human cells; and obviating the need for a father in IVF treatment), the PM has failed to protect the rights of the general public, over half of whom support the three causes, according to a recent Times poll.
Notwithstanding the result of the vote tonight, Brown put the interests of the Christian few over the rights of the many. Most people obviously disagree with a Catholic morality that puts the rights of the non-extant over those of the living.
Gordon Brown's failure to stand firm flies in the face of Department of Health (DoH) advice that the bill is essential to improve the technologies for assisting human reproduction and conducting high level research into finding cures for various diseases. The DoH also stresses that the bill is necessary to maintain the UK's position as a world leader in the science of embryology. It would not help our economy if we were to lose out in the same way as the US under George Bush, where embryonic stem cell research was denied federal funding nearly eight years ago.
Brown's about-turn has led many to conclude that the government's front benches are becoming increasingly religion-led. One Times reader this week pointed out that he had never before thought about "the religion of candidates for public office" but in future may not take such an "enlightened" approach if faith is given such sway in parliamentary votes. The idea that British voters may look closely at candidates' religious affiliations when choosing their MP raises fears that the more conservative style of religious voting seen in parts of Europe may come to Britain.
The vice-like grip of Catholicism holds fast across large parts of the continent. Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland are just some of the countries in Europe that have been subjected to interference by meddling cardinals. Abortion is still outlawed in Ireland and was only recently legalised in Portugal. Anti-abortion campaigns have, almost without exception, been led from the pulpit.
Catholicism has never taken a back seat; it has always actively interfered in democratic politics. In 2006 Pope Benedict castigated Catholic politicians in Canada for voting for gay rights and Cardinal Keith O'Brien, leader of Scotland's Catholics, is alleged to have compared same-sex relationships to paedophilia. The same Cardinal O'Brien is now accusing the human fertilisation and embryology bill of challenging "standards by which we have lived throughout our lives and by which Christians have lived for the past 2,000 years".
The European parliament has, fortunately, made a stand against some of this Christian fundamentalism. In a dramatic exercise of power in 2004, MEPs opposed the appointment of Rocco Buttiglione, nominated as a European commissioner by Silvio Berlusconi. Set to take up the justice, freedom and security portfolio, Buttiglione enraged the European parliament justice committee with his views on the role of women and his belief that homosexuality is a sin put forward during his confirmation hearings. The Italian government eventually withdrew his nomination as commissioner, due in large part to pressure from MEPs.
Given a similar opportunity, I wonder whether the Commons would have stood in the way of Ruth Kelly's appointment as minister for equality. Her strong religious beliefs obviously made her an inappropriate choice for this job, which involved standing up for the rights of homosexuals. Kelly famously refused to deny or confirm whether she thought homosexuality was a sin on Five Live in 2006.
Ruth Kelly's contention, supported by other religious politicians, that she can separate her private morals from public policy does not stand up to scrutiny. During the passage of the legislation to ban discrimination in the provision of goods and services in 2007, she is reputed to have fought hard for Catholic adoption agencies to opt out of the requirement to place children with same sex couples. When it came to the crunch, her Catholic faith won the day. Should devout Catholics such as Kelly, Browne and Murphy be allowed on the government front bench in the light of their predilection to favour the Pope's word above the government's?
Politicians are voted in to represent their electorates. People who vote for me and my colleagues expect us to further the interests of the public at large, not those of any particular religion, church, mosque, synagogue, temple or indeed any other interest group. We go against the democratic foundations of our country at our peril.
30 May
The Times Online
Faith News
NIB reporting that the vice-chair of Young Labour has resigned after particularly objecting to Mary’s language in comment is free piece.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4035217.ece
The Catholic Herald
“Labour activist quits post over anti-Catholicism”
Quotes Conor McGinn heavily including about Mary Honeyball “This type of sectarian diatribe makes me wonder whether a prejudice we all thought was long consigned to the past is slowly re-emerging.”
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000291.shtml
6 June
Tribune
John Street’s Diary
Connor (sic) McGinn…has quit his post in disgust over what he perceives as the party’s anti-Catholic stance. He was particularly upset at the suggestion from Mary Honeyball MEP that Ruth Kelly’s strong religious beliefs “…obviously made her an inappropriate choice” for the job of Communities Secretary.
13 June
Total Catholic
“Labour’s anti-Catholicism raised with PM”
http://www.totalcatholic.com/tc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32:brown-faces-anti-catholic-concern&catid=14:uk-and-ireland&Itemid=34
16 June
New Statesman
“Whiff of anti-popery”
Written by Paul Donovan who also writes weekly columns for the Irish Post and Catholic weekly the Universe. He also contributes to the Guardian’s Comment is Free site, Tribune and the Morning Star.
Again article heavily quotes Conor McGinn and no response from Mary Honeyball was sought.
McGinn describes Honeyball's language as harking back to the days of Guy Fawkes. "Imagine substituting the words Jew or Muslim for Catholic in Mary Honeyball's comments - there would have been a furious reaction," says McGinn, whose stance resonates with several Catholic Labour MP.
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/06/anti-catholic-labour-party
Labour Home (blog)
“Is the Labour party anti-catholic?”
Is the Labour Party anti-Catholic? Conor McGinn, the vice chairman of Young Labour has resigned his post in protest at the party's alleged anti-Catholic prejudice and its hostility towards the pro-life movement.
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/6/16/85046/5274
18 June
BBC Radio Ulster
Talk Back
Debate with Conor McGinn and Mary Honeyball on the separation of religion and politics and the influence of the Catholic Church. We were contacted by the show. The researcher asked us to defend our case and we were told Conor McGinn was going to speak on the show about the reasons for his resignation whether we appeared or not.
19 June
Labour Home (blog)
“Labour MP decries Labour anti Catholicism”
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/6/18/1919/41752
20 June
Tribune
“Religious persecution may drive us out of the Labour Party”
Comment piece by Conor McGinn
Cites Mary Honeyball’s comment piece as “the most vicious of recent attacks on Catholics in the Labour party”
23 June
New Statesman
“Faith and reason”
Mary Honeyball responds in a letter accusing Paul Donovan’s piece of “…misconstruing the pro-democracy message of my article…I am not anti-Catholic but anti any religion that attempts to coerce or control parliament by exploiting the religious convictions of MPs.”
Total Catholic
“Labour’s ‘anti-Catholicism’ raised with PM”
“Church’s social welfare work threatened”
Conor McGinn quoted discussing emails requesting his phone number from Mary Honeyball.
http://www.totalcatholic.com/tc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77:churchs-social-welfare-work-threatened&catid=14:uk-and-ireland&Itemid=34
Theo’s Blog
Posting starts: “Shocked to see local MEP Mary Honeyball’s statements in her article…”
http://regentsparklabour.blogspot.com/2008/06/shocked-to-see-local-mep-mary.html
26 June
Dolphinarium (blog)
“Venomballs”
Leaked email to Prospect/Fabian Review posted on blogsite
http://dolphinarium.blogspot.com/2008/06/venomballs.html
27 June
Islington Tribune
“Activist claims Labour has anti-Catholic bias”
In the piece Conor McGinn says“..an article written by Mary Honeyball MEP made his position “untenable”.”.
http://www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/2008/062708/news062708_09.html
2 July
Political Betting online (comment)
“What Price the Gordon Comeback?”
Extract from 171st comment in response to posting: With that Catholic youth leader resigning over anto-Catholic bias ( http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/6/16/85046/5274 ) and Mary Honeyball MEP writing her piece in the Guardian ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/20/cardinalssins ) I think any deliberate mention of a policy issue such as the HF&E bill by Cardinal O’Brian will be a massive psychic wink to the Catholic vote that Labour is no longer their party. by Morus July 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 am
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/07/01/what-price-the-gordon-come-back/#comment-712304
4 July
Tribune
“Condemn these Catholic tastes for intimidating those who disagree”
Letter from Mary Honeyball in response to Conor McGinn’s previous comment piece.
Islington Tribune/Camden News Journal/Camden Gazette
Mary Honeyball responds with letter to “Activist claims Labour has anti-Catholic bias” article.
Theo’s Blog
“No to Da Vinci Code politics”
Article starts: “Mary Honeyball’s bizarre and illadvised crusade against Catholics in the cabinet continues apace in today’s Tribune….”
http://regentsparklabour.blogspot.com/2008/07/no-to-da-vinci-code-politics.html
5 July
Political Betting.com (article)
“Will the Catholics abandon Labour?”
“…with the resignation letter of Conor McGinn (vice-chairman of Young Labour) claiming an ‘anti-catholic’ hostility in the party, and a recent article by Labour MEP Mary Honeyball that asked whether Catholics should be allowed to hold governmental office, there is much discussion amongst Catholics as to whether this natural loyalty to Labour is something that should be perpetuated.”
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/07/05/will-catholics-abandon-labour/
8 July
Daily Telegraph (comment piece)
Article by James MacMillan "Why Gordon Brown will lose Glasgow East". Mary Honeyball's "Cardinal Sins" article quoted out of context - "should devout Catholics such as Ruth Kelly, Des Browne, and Paul Murphy be allowed on the front bench?" The writer then infers - "we have to assume that there is no place any more for Catholics in New Labour."
The "Cardinal Sins" piece about the Embryology Bill and previous government legislation to ban discrimination in the provision of goods and services actually said, "Should devout Catholics such as Kelly, Browne and Murphy be allowed on the government front bench in the light of their predilection to favour the Pope's word above the government's?"
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
CARDINALS' SINS
Gordon Brown has allowed his authority to be undermined by the three Catholics in his cabinet. Take a look at my comment on this for the Guardian website at this link:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/mary_honeyball/2008/05/cardinals_sins.html
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/mary_honeyball/2008/05/cardinals_sins.html
Friday, 9 May 2008
Pro-lifers must protest at Mail and Dorries' insult to women's intelligence
This week, in the run up to the second reading of the human fertilisation and embroyolgy bill, anti-abortionist campaigners have used the Daily Mail as a soap-box for their liturgy of guilt and condemnation on women who have foetuses aborted between 20 and 24 weeks.
Fortunately commonsense has prevailed through comment pieces in the Guardian and news of a report published today by the British Medical Journal. Both have sought to assuage the speculative and highly subjective use of facts, figures and general hearsay used by the pro-lifers with more substantive and objective research.
The BMJ study of all premature births in one region, Trent, shows that life expectancy for babies born before 24 weeks are poor and have not improved since the last review of this bill took place in 1990.
In the face of clear cut objective medical research Nadine Dorries MP, who is leading the cross party group launching the "20 Reasons for 20 weeks campaign", has shown her true colours with her ludicrously subjective statement in today's Guardian:
"I think this report insults the intelligence of the public and MPs alike. No improvement in neonatal care in 12 years? Really? So where has all the money that has been pumped into neonatal services gone then?" She called the study "the most desperate piece of tosh produced by the pro-choice lobby".
Comment pieces by Zoe Williams and Polly Toynbee have cast also cast aspersions on Dorries and the Mail's sensationalist use of facts and figures this week. Some of the most powerful myths they have dispelled I think are:
Myth:
Two-thirds of GPs support a reduction in the time limit.
Fact:
At the last British Medical Association vote on the matter, 77% voted to keep the time limit as it is.
Myth:
Foetuses can feel pain at 18 weeks.
Fact:
This myth is based on just one study from the University of Arkansas. But the consensus in the mainstream medical community is that the neurological development necessary for pain is more like 26 weeks plus.
Myth:
The abortion of foetuses between 20 and 24 weeks is commonplace in the UK.
Fact:
Only 1.45% of abortions happen after 20 weeks. Of this small per cent one woman was just 14-years-old and arrived at a clinic when she was 23 weeks and five days pregnant: her periods had become irregular but she had not realised she was pregnant until a school nurse referred her just in time. (Some women are caught out by having periods all through pregnancy, a trick nature plays.) Another was a 27-year-old who arrived at just over 22 weeks' gestation. She already had a 10-month-old, a five-year-old and a six-year-old, all of them in foster care. She said the next baby would go straight into care, because she was a drug user. In a chaotic daze, she had left the abortion to the last minute. Then there was the woman who arrived at 22 weeks and four days, who had been drinking heavily and taking large doses of cocaine, unaware she was pregnant. The one rational choice these addicted women were fit to make was to know they were not fit to be mothers.
Myth:
Foetuses are being aborted late in the pregnancy because women are being too lazy to sort it out before this time.
Truth:
If campaigners really wanted more abortions to take place earlier in the pregnancy, then they would work towards improving access to terminations on the NHS. Conversely, this campaign is all designed to stigmatise abortion, castigate women, lionise the foetus, and make the whole debate so emotionally charged that it no longer matters whether the argument has any factual basis at all. Never mind the insult to women.
Sad truth:
This week some Labour MPs may be taking fright. They have been sent lurid DVDs of abortions: last time they were sent plastic foetuses. Bombarded with letters from their local churches, some may reckon that voting to cut a few weeks off the time-limit won't matter much. But it does. And unfortunately the pro-choice lobby has no pulpits to marshal its troops.
New research on baby survival rates stokes abortion limit row
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/may/09/health.medicalresearch
Fact, fiction and foetuses (Zoe Williams comment)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/07/gender.health
Resist the medievalists. Women's right to abortion is a private matter (Polly Toynbee comment)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/09/health.health
Fortunately commonsense has prevailed through comment pieces in the Guardian and news of a report published today by the British Medical Journal. Both have sought to assuage the speculative and highly subjective use of facts, figures and general hearsay used by the pro-lifers with more substantive and objective research.
The BMJ study of all premature births in one region, Trent, shows that life expectancy for babies born before 24 weeks are poor and have not improved since the last review of this bill took place in 1990.
In the face of clear cut objective medical research Nadine Dorries MP, who is leading the cross party group launching the "20 Reasons for 20 weeks campaign", has shown her true colours with her ludicrously subjective statement in today's Guardian:
"I think this report insults the intelligence of the public and MPs alike. No improvement in neonatal care in 12 years? Really? So where has all the money that has been pumped into neonatal services gone then?" She called the study "the most desperate piece of tosh produced by the pro-choice lobby".
Comment pieces by Zoe Williams and Polly Toynbee have cast also cast aspersions on Dorries and the Mail's sensationalist use of facts and figures this week. Some of the most powerful myths they have dispelled I think are:
Myth:
Two-thirds of GPs support a reduction in the time limit.
Fact:
At the last British Medical Association vote on the matter, 77% voted to keep the time limit as it is.
Myth:
Foetuses can feel pain at 18 weeks.
Fact:
This myth is based on just one study from the University of Arkansas. But the consensus in the mainstream medical community is that the neurological development necessary for pain is more like 26 weeks plus.
Myth:
The abortion of foetuses between 20 and 24 weeks is commonplace in the UK.
Fact:
Only 1.45% of abortions happen after 20 weeks. Of this small per cent one woman was just 14-years-old and arrived at a clinic when she was 23 weeks and five days pregnant: her periods had become irregular but she had not realised she was pregnant until a school nurse referred her just in time. (Some women are caught out by having periods all through pregnancy, a trick nature plays.) Another was a 27-year-old who arrived at just over 22 weeks' gestation. She already had a 10-month-old, a five-year-old and a six-year-old, all of them in foster care. She said the next baby would go straight into care, because she was a drug user. In a chaotic daze, she had left the abortion to the last minute. Then there was the woman who arrived at 22 weeks and four days, who had been drinking heavily and taking large doses of cocaine, unaware she was pregnant. The one rational choice these addicted women were fit to make was to know they were not fit to be mothers.
Myth:
Foetuses are being aborted late in the pregnancy because women are being too lazy to sort it out before this time.
Truth:
If campaigners really wanted more abortions to take place earlier in the pregnancy, then they would work towards improving access to terminations on the NHS. Conversely, this campaign is all designed to stigmatise abortion, castigate women, lionise the foetus, and make the whole debate so emotionally charged that it no longer matters whether the argument has any factual basis at all. Never mind the insult to women.
Sad truth:
This week some Labour MPs may be taking fright. They have been sent lurid DVDs of abortions: last time they were sent plastic foetuses. Bombarded with letters from their local churches, some may reckon that voting to cut a few weeks off the time-limit won't matter much. But it does. And unfortunately the pro-choice lobby has no pulpits to marshal its troops.
New research on baby survival rates stokes abortion limit row
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/may/09/health.medicalresearch
Fact, fiction and foetuses (Zoe Williams comment)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/07/gender.health
Resist the medievalists. Women's right to abortion is a private matter (Polly Toynbee comment)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/09/health.health
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
MEN IN FROCKS DENY HUMAN RIGHTS
While I, along with most decent people, try to respect an individual's religious faith, I find it impossible to accept the shanigins of the Roman Catholic Church on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill currently going through the House of Commons. Cardinal Keith O'Brien, seemingly the leading man in a frock on this matter, has called the proposed legislation a "monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life." Having been caught out on the adoption agencies legislation, the Catholic Church is really going for the Embryology Bill.
As well as the obvious question - what celibate men in frocks know about this issue - the pressure coming from the Catholic Church is directly opposed to basic human rights. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is designed to bring existing laws on fertility treatment and embryo research into line with scientific advances. It will allow procedures which may save lives and improve conditions for those who are sick. According to the Medical Research Council, the Royal Society, the Wellcome Trust and the Academy of Medical Sciences, "This research has massive potential to provide treatments for serious debilitating disorders ranging from developmental abnormalities in young children, to stroke, cancer, HIV/Aids, diabetes and Parkinson's disease, as well as better and safer treatment for infertile couples."
Nevertheless, the men in frocks think diktats created over 2000 years ago are more important than life on this earth in the here and now. Sadly, three Cabinet members seem to agree with them. Paul Murphy, Des Browne and Ruth Kelly have almost certainly been responsible for persuading Gordon Brown to come up with his recently announced compromise. Labour MPs will now have a free vote on the most controversial parts of the Bill - preventing fertility clinics from refusing treatment to single women and lesbians, creating a child with the correct tissue match to save a sick brother or sister and creating so-called hybrid animal/human embryos to aid stem cell research.
Why on earth should matters to do with reproduction and sexuality be questions of "conscience" and thus allowed a free vote in Parliament while going to war and raising taxes (to name but two) are subject to the most rigorous party discipline? There has never been an adequate answer to this, save perhaps the unspoken thought that since it is women who are more affected, it is somehow all right to ride roughshod over their (our) human rights.
As well as the obvious question - what celibate men in frocks know about this issue - the pressure coming from the Catholic Church is directly opposed to basic human rights. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is designed to bring existing laws on fertility treatment and embryo research into line with scientific advances. It will allow procedures which may save lives and improve conditions for those who are sick. According to the Medical Research Council, the Royal Society, the Wellcome Trust and the Academy of Medical Sciences, "This research has massive potential to provide treatments for serious debilitating disorders ranging from developmental abnormalities in young children, to stroke, cancer, HIV/Aids, diabetes and Parkinson's disease, as well as better and safer treatment for infertile couples."
Nevertheless, the men in frocks think diktats created over 2000 years ago are more important than life on this earth in the here and now. Sadly, three Cabinet members seem to agree with them. Paul Murphy, Des Browne and Ruth Kelly have almost certainly been responsible for persuading Gordon Brown to come up with his recently announced compromise. Labour MPs will now have a free vote on the most controversial parts of the Bill - preventing fertility clinics from refusing treatment to single women and lesbians, creating a child with the correct tissue match to save a sick brother or sister and creating so-called hybrid animal/human embryos to aid stem cell research.
Why on earth should matters to do with reproduction and sexuality be questions of "conscience" and thus allowed a free vote in Parliament while going to war and raising taxes (to name but two) are subject to the most rigorous party discipline? There has never been an adequate answer to this, save perhaps the unspoken thought that since it is women who are more affected, it is somehow all right to ride roughshod over their (our) human rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
