I just wrote to my MP. You can too - use the online form on the website of Abortion Rights, the national pro-choice campaign (see below). Read some background in my previous article on Nadine Dorries, who is pushing these changes, and Sian and Crooked Rib's blog here.
---
I am writing to express my concern at proposed changes to abortion counselling arrangements currently under consideration by the Department of Health, based on amendments to the Health and Social Care bill.
The proposals require GPs to make provision for ‘independent advice and counselling’ to be made available to women seeking abortion, stripping abortion providers of responsibility for carrying out this role.
I believe that these proposals are unnecessary and misguided. Abortion providers are already obliged to ensure that women receive all relevant information about the procedure, including details of possible risks and side effects and information on alternatives to abortion.
Preventing abortion providers from offering decision-making support opens the door for organisations opposed in principle to abortion to become formally involved in counselling women on their pregnancy options. These organisations do not offer impartial, non-directive information, but rather seek to misinform and dissuade women from accessing abortion services.
I am also concerned that introducing further counselling requirements would delay women from accessing services, at a time when waiting periods are rising across the NHS. The proposals would likewise disrupt care pathways for women who choose to self-refer to abortion providers, rather than approaching their GP.
Women must be trusted to make their own decisions regarding their reproductive health. It is vital that the information they receive remains scientifically accurate and driven by clinical best practice rather than by ideological agenda.
If these amendments are debated at Report Stage of the Health and Social Care Bill on 6-7th September, I urge you to vote against them, to ensure that women continue to be able to exercise their right to safe, legal abortion without further impediment.
29 August 2011
19 August 2011
Lady Sovereign: young political icon
With hat tip* to Latte Labour for introducing me to one of the most astute, insightful artists around, here’s Lady Soveriegn – whose lyrics are a much better contribution to political debate than David Starkey’s comments last week.
Lady Sovereign has had an extraordinary rise to fame and success. As I was in a rush, I consulted her Wikipedia entry for details (although I am increasingly reluctant to do this these days since I found out that most updates are done by men).
She's a role model for young women, and was indeed inspired herself by a rare female rap star - showing how important it is that role models for young people exist.
According to Wiki:
'She decided to pursue rap after hearing Ms. Dynamite on the radio: "When I heard Ms. Dynamite's track 'Boooo!' in 2001 it inspired me. I hadn't heard a female MC before that... she's real... her presence... her image... the way she does everything... she opened so many doors for us girls, MCs are real, they write their own stuff, they rap about what they know, the stuff around them." She was also influenced by her mother's Salt-n-Pepa albums and began writing poetry at age 11.'
David Cameron said this week that the riots "were not about poverty". But data out yesterday showed that the majority of people who have appeared in court live in poor neighbourhoods, with 41 percent of suspects living in one of the top 10 percent of most deprived places in the country.
By the way, more than 90 percent are male - a subject for another blog post (other feminists have blogged it - see MarinaS who writes about the skewed reportage, for example).
By the way, more than 90 percent are male - a subject for another blog post (other feminists have blogged it - see MarinaS who writes about the skewed reportage, for example).
*Hat tip (or HT or via) is new Twitterspeak for acknowledgement.
13 August 2011
We are the society
The riots this week have divided political opinion in a way that has never been more stark.
For many, punishment is the only solution: increased aggression and stigmatisation of the perpetrators, absolute intolerance. Responsibility lies with the individual, and to suggest otherwise contributes to the feeling of ‘entitlement’ of the ‘sick’ society that we are seeing today.
This idea would hold if everyone were equal. If the same wealth, future and opportunities were available to all, then perhaps we could be justified in picking out the odd individual who misbehaved and labelling them as ‘sick’ (although I think labelling is always a very bad idea).
But we don’t have equality. It wasn’t the rich people rioting on the streets. Do people really think that poor people are intrinsically morally worse than rich people? It’s reactionary nonsense.
For me – and for many others – the solution is all about understanding and compassion. We are all human beings; we all have potential to be good or bad. Inequality and fear can lead to bitterness and hate. We are all responsible for our society as a whole. If we push people away, they will come back to bite us.
Rich people are equally likely to act immorally, but they do it in different ways, because of their circumstances. They may not loot shops. But they may be racist, sexist and homophobic, or selfish, corrupt and insecure; they may exploit their power and hurt people because of it (did anyone see the David Starkey clip?). This week, I have seen a deluge of hate against the rioters, many of whom are children. Is this hate not just springing from fear in the same way?
On Thursday, the politicians came together in the Commons with the prime intention of supporting the victims of the riots.
And rightly so. But we need to realise very soon is that the perpetrators are victims too. If we don’t, there will forever be fear, there will never be forgiveness and there will always a barrier. In other words, we have to care.
Ed Miliband, in the Commons, acknowledged that we all have a responsibility for our society, but he was far too careful. I don't blame him (this was discussed over at Liberal Conspiracy). The country is in shock, and needs time to recover.
But politicians have been tiptoeing around the truth, afraid of upsetting people. I hope Ed and others will be brave enough to address it soon. Riots do not happen for no reason, as this excellent blog over at Tea Cups & Ink Stains eloquently explains.
Cameron said in the Commons that he would ‘look beyond these shores’ at gang culture in other countries. He mentioned New York, but he didn’t mention Brazil.
And yet this is where the answer may lie. Brazil is used to events like these. The description of the gang that Cameron gave was eerily like a gang in Brazilian shanty towns – the ‘favelas’.
Cameron said: “These gangs are territorial, hierarchical, violent, consist mostly of young boys who come from dysfunctional families, deal in drugs, under control of an authoritarian leader and often attack innocent people.”
Rapper Reveal mentioned Brazil and the favelas on Newsnight on Tuesday. In Brazil, extreme inequality in society (wealth and opportunities) has created a situation in which the police – who have some of the most advanced guns in the world – are at war with the shanty town communities (the favelas). Watch this documentary, for starters.
The favelas live off the drug trade. But it is the middle class people outside who are buying the drugs, fuelling the favelas, and – at the same time – condemning them.
In the UK, we don’t have the same degree of inequality, but we are seeing increasing resentment, discrimination and disengagement and a dangerous division in society.
And the less we engage; the more intolerant and dismissive of the people who are crying for help, the more they will be marginalised. And there will be war.
This is why Diane Abbott is absolutely right that militarisation should not be used.
This crime is not primarily because of greed, it is because of a perception of inequality. Not just about inequality of wealth, but also opportunities. And a feeling of helplessness, hopelessness and neglect, and of fear.
If this is not addressed, the situation will get worse. Cameron is right; we are all responsible for what we do. We are also responsible for our society – because our society is a mirror image of us.
For many, punishment is the only solution: increased aggression and stigmatisation of the perpetrators, absolute intolerance. Responsibility lies with the individual, and to suggest otherwise contributes to the feeling of ‘entitlement’ of the ‘sick’ society that we are seeing today.
This idea would hold if everyone were equal. If the same wealth, future and opportunities were available to all, then perhaps we could be justified in picking out the odd individual who misbehaved and labelling them as ‘sick’ (although I think labelling is always a very bad idea).
But we don’t have equality. It wasn’t the rich people rioting on the streets. Do people really think that poor people are intrinsically morally worse than rich people? It’s reactionary nonsense.
For me – and for many others – the solution is all about understanding and compassion. We are all human beings; we all have potential to be good or bad. Inequality and fear can lead to bitterness and hate. We are all responsible for our society as a whole. If we push people away, they will come back to bite us.
Rich people are equally likely to act immorally, but they do it in different ways, because of their circumstances. They may not loot shops. But they may be racist, sexist and homophobic, or selfish, corrupt and insecure; they may exploit their power and hurt people because of it (did anyone see the David Starkey clip?). This week, I have seen a deluge of hate against the rioters, many of whom are children. Is this hate not just springing from fear in the same way?
On Thursday, the politicians came together in the Commons with the prime intention of supporting the victims of the riots.
And rightly so. But we need to realise very soon is that the perpetrators are victims too. If we don’t, there will forever be fear, there will never be forgiveness and there will always a barrier. In other words, we have to care.
Ed Miliband, in the Commons, acknowledged that we all have a responsibility for our society, but he was far too careful. I don't blame him (this was discussed over at Liberal Conspiracy). The country is in shock, and needs time to recover.
But politicians have been tiptoeing around the truth, afraid of upsetting people. I hope Ed and others will be brave enough to address it soon. Riots do not happen for no reason, as this excellent blog over at Tea Cups & Ink Stains eloquently explains.
Cameron said in the Commons that he would ‘look beyond these shores’ at gang culture in other countries. He mentioned New York, but he didn’t mention Brazil.
And yet this is where the answer may lie. Brazil is used to events like these. The description of the gang that Cameron gave was eerily like a gang in Brazilian shanty towns – the ‘favelas’.
Cameron said: “These gangs are territorial, hierarchical, violent, consist mostly of young boys who come from dysfunctional families, deal in drugs, under control of an authoritarian leader and often attack innocent people.”
Rapper Reveal mentioned Brazil and the favelas on Newsnight on Tuesday. In Brazil, extreme inequality in society (wealth and opportunities) has created a situation in which the police – who have some of the most advanced guns in the world – are at war with the shanty town communities (the favelas). Watch this documentary, for starters.
The favelas live off the drug trade. But it is the middle class people outside who are buying the drugs, fuelling the favelas, and – at the same time – condemning them.
In the UK, we don’t have the same degree of inequality, but we are seeing increasing resentment, discrimination and disengagement and a dangerous division in society.
And the less we engage; the more intolerant and dismissive of the people who are crying for help, the more they will be marginalised. And there will be war.
This is why Diane Abbott is absolutely right that militarisation should not be used.
This crime is not primarily because of greed, it is because of a perception of inequality. Not just about inequality of wealth, but also opportunities. And a feeling of helplessness, hopelessness and neglect, and of fear.
If this is not addressed, the situation will get worse. Cameron is right; we are all responsible for what we do. We are also responsible for our society – because our society is a mirror image of us.
02 August 2011
Beware Blue Labour?
As far I can glean, it's a vision that stems from:
1) a concern that the market is too powerful under the Tories
2) a concern that the state has got too powerful and bureaucratic under Labour
3) the idea that existing society has its own traditions, work ethic and community (centred around faith and family) that we can build on and put at the heart of a new kind of society.
Sounds sensible at first glance. And there could be something in it. But...my concern is that some of the community 'values' that Glasman talks about are reactionary, and are championed by rightwingers who want to keep people in their place. My take is as follows:
1) working with the community is good (and is what David Miliband pushed for prior to the leadership election and in his Movement for Change project)
2) building on existing networks and communities is good
3) but doing this while sweeping along society's old-fashioned 'values', which do not necessarily uphold Labour's core values of equality and tolerance, is NOT good (and with no state intervention, these persist).
There are more questions to be asked. Diane Abbott MP, who I admire for her straight talking, chutzpah and common sense (and who I wrote about here and voted for), sums it up very well in this video:
Also, check this out: journalist and Labour Councillor Rowenna Davis - who is writing a book on Blue Labour - questions Maurice Glasman in this Guardian article: Will Blue Labour lead us back to female subservience? and here's an excellent Fabian Society blog on the subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
