Not for the Politicians......!!

I originally wrote this post last week, a full on rant about Nadine Dorries and her strangely “Pro-Life” and foolish legislation that she wanted to bring in. Okay, so today she has gone on the record in parliament to say that she is” Pro-Choice” but I am not totally convinced on that.

This is after all, the woman that in May this year, proposed a bill that required sex education in schools should include content promoting abstinence to girls aged 13 to 16. Even though the sex education that is already taught mentions the option of abstinence, the new bill would require active promotion of abstinence to girls only. Now, it has been 25 years since I was a teenager but from memory, boys were just as, if not more promiscuous as us girls. So the question needs to be asked why not this “active promotion” to boys?

She then followed this on a week later with ‘If a stronger ‘just say no’ message was given to children in school, there might be an impact on sex abuse, because a lot of girls, when sex abuse takes place don’t realise until later that was a wrong thing to do... I don’t think people realise that if we did empower this message into girls, imbued this message in school, we would probably have less sex abuse’. Hmm so what is she saying here? That the lack of awareness around abstinence among young girls is linked to rates of child sexual abuse and nothing to do with predatory, manipulating males? Do young boys not get abused?

Anyway I digress.

So today the majority of MPs saw sense and rejected by an over whelming majority the bid to change the law on abortion counselling. Which surely is good news for all women in Britian? What right does one individual in a position of power or in this case government have to tell us what we can and can’t do with our lives. Women should be awarded the choice to decide what is best for them and their families and not dictated to by someone else’s beliefs.  Thankfully in this country we are afforded that choice and I for one can see no reasons why it needs to be changed.

In effect what Dorries was saying was that the current organisations such as BPAS and Marie Stopes, had a financial interest into pushing women into having abortions. That they were not providing, “adequate care” for those seeking abortions. That independent counselling should be made available if the patient so wish it. That sounds all fine and you can think okay so what is the big deal about all this? Well the current abortion services are regulated and are kept to official guidelines. The counselling that is already provided, if a woman wants to take it up, is done by trained professionals independently of the clinics doctors. So the questions that need answering are who or what would these new “independent counsellors” be? How could they be able to provide any more help than what is already available? Would they be regulated and made to follow the same guidelines? Would they be able to help a woman who is indecisive about having an abortion to make the right decision for her without any moral or religious prejudice? Would all this cause additional delay and distress?

Abortion is and always will be an emotive and contentious subject. It is a private and personal matter and should remain so. It has no place in government nor should governments use it to gather party votes. You only need to look to the US to see how it is used as a political football.

Women should be able to have the choice to decide.  They after all are the ones that have to live with the decision they have made, some do so quite easily, some do not.

A matter of choice..

Monday night saw the documentary by Terry Pratchett, he of the Discworld fantasy books on “Choosing to Die”.  For those who didn’t see it, it was about Terry Pratchett trying to establish whether he would be able to die at the time and in a way he wanted.  In the documentary he followed two people to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland where they had chosen to end their lives.  The final moments of the film saw one of the men who had Motor Neuron disease dying.

As upsetting, disturbing and strangely peaceful those final moments were I couldn’t help but wonder why on earth he had to travel to Switzerland, to a foreign place to end his life. Why is the government dragging its heels on this issue?  Yes, it is an emotive and contentious issue.  Yes, we have to protect the vulnerable to ensure no one is coerced into making this somewhat final decision.  Yes, the argument against assisted dying is strong though mainly based on religious or moral beliefs.

But surely as a Human Being suffering from a terminal\debilitating disease, illness or injury we should have the right to choose to die with the dignity afforded to us.  What right is it for another individual or even government policy\law to tell us that we can’t?  Then if we do choose to go aboard it is at a cost, which then makes it only accessible for the rich.  While there is a threat that your loved ones may be prosecuted on their return to the UK.

Living Wills are common place now, where they let your loved ones know what medical treatments you want or don’t want to help prolong your life if you are unable to make those decisions yourself.  So why then when you are in “sound mind” you are not allowed to choose when to die.

I know that if the time came that I had to make that choice as upsetting it would be for my family and friends I know that they would support me in my decision.  You go through life making choices all the time and when your life is full of pain and illness then you should be able to make that final choice.

To choose to die in your own bed, your favorite chair or place surrounded by the ones you love and who respect your final choice in life, must surely be a choice available to all.

Agreeing with Boris....??

Now is fair to say that I am not a Boris Johnson fan (Mr P is which sums him up really) and I generally do not agree with him or his policies.  But I have to say his latest legislation proposal in that there should be a strike vote threshold before industrial action can take place makes absolute sense.  This of course centers on the RMT and their threat of a weeklong strike next week which thankfully now has been called off.

Figures were released yesterday that only 11% of the London Underground’s 3429 drivers voted for the strike action.  In an additional ballot of Bob Crow’s members only 46% turned out to vote!  Of the 46% only 379 voted for strike action.  Now you don’t have to be a mathematically genius to work out that this strike action was not agreed upon by the majority of the union members.  Therefore, why should a small number of members hold such power over the other union members plus the people of London?

David Cameron does not seem to keen to back Boris up either as he has not given any indication whether he is going to do something about it.  Perhaps he is trying to appease the Lib Dems who do not what to see changes made.   Surely with all the infighting within the coalition someone can see that Boris has got a good point here.  Especially with the London Mayoral elections next year can they not see how advantageous legislation like this would be for their campaign?  

It has been estimated that the last tube strike cost London £50 million a day, affecting well over 1 million users, surely in this hard economic times the government should be trying to do what they can to stop militant unionists from holding the city and its people to ransom.

A Tory mayor, a Tory lead government, a chance to begin to break the most militant unions in the country, a chance to back Ed Miliband into an uncomfortable position to support the unions (who got him the leadership) or not… what would Maggie T do?

Disclaimer: I don't vote Tory...