RIP The right of a woman to choose

grumppa

I have just read that MEPs in Strasbourg have voted by 324 to 155, with 38 abstentions, for the right to have an abortion to be added to the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. This was prompted by the judgement in the USA.

Pity we aren't members of the EU any more.

Thanks grumppa for this news.
It’s another reason to regret we aren’t members of the EU

This severely disabled woman has no right to choose who takes her to the toilet, who washes her, who provides her intimate care or who changes her sanitary wear:

Our severely learning-disabled sixteen year-old daughter, Helen (not her real name), is entirely dependent on others for intimate care. Nearly two years ago, her special school sent round a new intimate care policy, which had been ratified by its governing body:

“A decision has been made to remove cross-gender consent from the personal and intimate care policy, which is in line with legislation and guidance relating to equality and diversity”.

In other words, same-sex intimate care had now become cross-gender intimate care, a change of policy that would allow male members of staff to take Helen to the loo, one-to-one, behind a closed door. As her parents, our reaction was initially disbelief, followed by outrage, and a determination that this policy change should be reversed. Life as parents of a severely learning-disabled, autistic and non-verbal daughter certainly has its worries, and some of these are the focus of this blog. But there is a danger, in writing at length about our worries and fears for Helen’s present and future, that we leave readers thinking our experience is one of unending woe, for which we are seeking sympathy.

www.transgendertrend.com/severely-learning-disabled-girl-sex-based-rights-under-threat/

Pity Raab has ruled out including it in any British Rights.

I have just read that MEPs in Strasbourg have voted by 324 to 155, with 38 abstentions, for the right to have an abortion to be added to the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. This was prompted by the judgement in the USA.

Pity we aren't members of the EU any more.

This idea has some ugly company. Stalin's 1941 family law meant that unmarried people, and married women with fewer than three children, were taxed at a higher rate.

Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu implemented a policy in 1977 which meant all childless people in Romania were made to pay a monthly tax, part of a suite of pro-natalist policies that included banning abortion and contraception.

To add to the above good points: this isn’t even a way of encouraging women to have children (that would be through tax relief, affordable childcare, removing the third child penalty etc). It’s punishing - fining - those who don’t or can’t.

It's exactly the same as the Third Reich's Kinder, Küche, Kirche policy. An attempt to make women stay at home barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen sink.

RichmondPark

'Should we tax the childless'. His point is that rather than rely on immigration we should 'grow our own' and incentivise couples to have more children and to have them younger. (Dr Paul Morland)

He thinks this needs to be discussed by "informed" people rather than "cranks and fanatics".

That statement alone should ring alarm bells. We are all "informed" that having children is an individual choice - a choice that should be enshrined in Law. Every citizen, rich or poor, has the right to make that decision, and the State should keep its nose out of what is a very personal and private matter.

... and who gets to decide which individuals are "cranks and fanatics"?

Taxing the childless, as an incentive to increase the birth rate, is so fraught with complications that I'm tempted to think only a fanatic would even think of it as a proposal.

At what point do you begin with this 'tax' - automatically tax anyone without children until they produce them?; give couples a 'grace' period in which to 'produce'?; penalise someone who has lost their only child - and those who cannot have children because of a disease or other condition?; do you continue to tax the childless in old age?; and do you tax a couple who are desperately trying to have children and undergoing fertility treatment without success? And what about those parents who lose a child at birth - are they going to be penalised, too?

That's without even considering the impact this would have on a woman's life choices in terms of a career, and how society might view a childless woman as some sort of 'pariah' for not doing her patriotic duty to breed the next generation of workers.

What prospective parents need is jobs that pay a living wage, secure accommodation if they are renting (and not at the mercy of a landlord who can terminate their tenancy at will), and the ability to buy a home of their own. They need an NHS that is functioning, good schools within their catchment area, reasonably priced nursery care.

What they don't need is a computer-generated 'congratulatory' message from the Queen (or King) on the birth of their 3rd child - nor some privileged ex-Oxford graduate, dictating their nationalistic 'duty' to act as breeding units.

I'm greatly in favour of taxation as a means to create an equitable society for everyone, but this proposed tax is nothing short of a fascist diktak.

After the reversal of Roe-Wade, they're all going to come crawling out of the woodwork in this country... all those 'cranks and fanatics' who think a woman's place is in the home, the kitchen, the nursery... and the church.

Women are under threat, our emancipation is too much for some to tolerate. No woman should be under any obligation to breed, and that's exactly what this proposed tax means.

... and I don't want to hear anymore from men - like the one who believed that a woman didn't have a right over her own autonomy.

RichmondPark

There's an worrying article in The Sunday Times today by Paul Morland (Oxford University) entitled 'Should we tax the childless'. His point is that rather than rely on immigration we should 'grow our own' and incentivise couples to have more children and to have them younger.

His suggestions include taxing the childless more, better child benefits and a letter from the Queen when you have your third child

He suggests the creation of a “pro-natal” culture and that "public figures can lead the way with words and actions (the prime minister, with his seven known offspring, has a track record in this regard)."

If this is the kind of way we are going then it is deeply disturbing on so many levels. Is it just me or is this the beginning of something awful? Imagine the pain of being involuntarily childless or, God forbid, losing your only child and then receiving your 'negative child-benefit tax' letter from HMRC.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1127a7fa-f95b-11ec-b060-3c9acf7f2ee6?shareToken=472ad9c12331ccc61b0984a213e8e5eb
Sadly behind a paywall, but you can register to view for free.

... it could almost be the opening chapters of "The Handmaid's Tale" couldn't it?

If this is the kind of way we are going then it is deeply disturbing on so many levels. Is it just me or is this the beginning of something awful?

No, it's not just you. I have never been so afraid, frankly.

Ah but now Danny Kruger says he's been "misunderstood" and that women "have taken his words out of context and I do not wish to dictate what a woman should do with her own body, as has been claimed". Odd that because I don't think that saying "They think that women have an absolute right to bodily autonomy in this matter, whereas I think in the case of abortion that right is qualified by the fact that another body is involved." leaves any margin for misinterpretation.

Hooray for the people who have been protesting in Devizes this weekend after their MP Danny Kruger said he doesn't believe "women have an absolute right to bodily autonomy".

Good for them. This made me laugh.

There's an worrying article in The Sunday Times today by Paul Morland (Oxford University) entitled 'Should we tax the childless'. His point is that rather than rely on immigration we should 'grow our own' and incentivise couples to have more children and to have them younger.

His suggestions include taxing the childless more, better child benefits and a letter from the Queen when you have your third child

He suggests the creation of a “pro-natal” culture and that "public figures can lead the way with words and actions (the prime minister, with his seven known offspring, has a track record in this regard)."

If this is the kind of way we are going then it is deeply disturbing on so many levels. Is it just me or is this the beginning of something awful? Imagine the pain of being involuntarily childless or, God forbid, losing your only child and then receiving your 'negative child-benefit tax' letter from HMRC.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1127a7fa-f95b-11ec-b060-3c9acf7f2ee6?shareToken=472ad9c12331ccc61b0984a213e8e5eb
Sadly behind a paywall, but you can register to view for free.

A shocking case of child abuse is underscoring just how restrictive abortion laws in Republican states have become since the demise of Roe v Wade at the hands of the US Supreme Court in June.

Hours after the high court decision, Ohio outlawed any abortion after six weeks into the pregnancy, a point at which many don’t yet know they’re pregnant.

The new law meant that a 10-year-old who had been raped and was six weeks and three days pregnant couldn’t get an abortion in the state, according to a report from the Indianapolis Star.

Instead, the girl had to travel to neighbouring Indiana to access an abortion, one of many now forced to cross state lines to receive abortion services. And even this may soon cease to be an option for pregnant people in nearby states like Kentucky and Ohio with restrictive abortion laws.

(Source: The Independent)

This is primitive, Right-Wing zealotry. To demand that a child gives birth to a child after being raped shows the depths of misogyny to which these uncompromising fanatics will go to. The US Republican party is now so extreme that it can safely be called Fascist.

The Irish report/er I mentioned Upthread stated and showed that most of the protestors at that particular clinic were men.
There were 6 or 7 men and just one woman.

I wasn’t aware that this protest is spreading. Sad thing is, abortion won’t stop, it never will stop, but continue in the dangerous back streets for many. Is that what these people want, they don’t seem to offer any practical emotional or financial help to those they wish to dissuade. Most are too young to remember how things actually were in those days before 1967 when abortion was illegal.

Yes I agree. Many women in America are against abortion. It s a very polarised society. Obviously men will tend to control more of the positions of power in terms of legislation but yes many many women are against abortion rights.

Many people are painting this as a men versus women battle. It is not. The campaign to end Roe V Wade was led by a woman Lynn Fitch. There are many women that are against abortion and many men that are for abortion. Better to see it for what it is than try and pigeon hole it as the standard men versus women.

Happening in rest of U.K. not just NI. silverlining. Not all clinics offering termination have so called “buffer zones” to prevent protesters accosting women arriving for treatment.

Blue fox, the way your question is written suggests you’re unsympathetic to women who do not want to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

Bluefox

I appreciate ‘ rights’.
Every single person I’ve asked has shied away from answering this question:
What rights do an unborn child have?
Could you help me to understand?

Apparently more rights than the woman gestating them —at least in America

Just on the news, in Ireland there are people,mostly men, trying to intimidate women going into clinics, despite the fact that after so long, it is no longer illegal. I despair.

All they have done is banned safe abortion, hopefully other states will treat them. Americium not a safe country to be in what with no rights for women and ridiculous gun laws.

The is an interesting discussion on Byline TV Headlined "Will the Tories take women back to the Dark Ages?" It's an eyecatching headline but a very reasoned discussion.

Pammie, I was expecting that to be the next step- it's quite possible to see IUD's and the morning after pill as agents of abortion, if your mind works that way. IVF is another minefield, with potentially viable embryos created frozen for later use being in the sights of the "pro lifers".
For women who prefer/can't take the contraceptive pill, chances are being narrowed down to the responsibility being in the hands of the man- fine in the context of a loving relationship, but in the wrong (male) hands, a nightmare.

I've just been reading some comments on FB about Bette Midler's observations on Viagra. She's certainly rattled a few male posters!

I felt like telling them they should "lighten up" - considering the fact that (a) she's a comedian and (b) it's what we're often told if we take offence at some of the jokes men make about women (including jokes about rape). They can dish out the banter, but can't take it if it's aimed at them.

I so agree with your posts, Dickens. Thank you.