Tory Right are back; lowering abortion limit

So abortion is back in the limelight again with Maria Miller's comments in the Telegraph on lowering the limit from 24weeks to 20. Cue outrage!

Then in wades that paragon of ministerial etiquette Jeremy Hunt who commented he'd drop it to 12 weeks!!!!

Maria Miller MP, minister for women's health

Now, abortion is a sticky subject and everyone has an opinion. I believe it is the Woman's choice and she should not be pressured into either direction. I do however feel that they should be used as a last ditch form of contraception. My wife on the other hand agrees for the most part with me but would never have one herself.

Traditionally the Conservative right is against it or for lowering the limit. We had all of this last year with Nadine Dorries who, surprise surprise supports this. With a hasty retraction from Mr Hunt's comments it was stated that the Coalition has no plans to look at the limit and that Mr Hunt was voicing a personal opinion. Could it be that Jeremy should get back in his box? Or could this be show boating to their traditional voters to show they're still on the right and different from those filthy mud blood Liberal Democrats?

All supposition.

Let's look at the facts though. Most abortions occur around the 14 week mark and only 2% occur after 20 weeks. I agree with this article from the Guardian which points out the personal torment behind the latter's decision to abort the foetus.

On the flip side is the argument that states "define when life starts." It is a very grey area that on the one hand life is terminated and another baby born prematurely at the same point can be saved. Maybe it is a debate worth having but as long as the rights of the woman are kept solidly in mind. Though would it be fair that a group comprised of mostly middle aged + men are telling women everywhere what they can and can't do with their bodies?

Jeremy Hunt's 12 week limit seems ludicrous. It forces women to make a hastier decision with out the full facts available as tests for Down's syndrome may not have been completed by that point. Although he stated it was not down to any religious conviction there are many who believe that that is a factor. Personally I think that religious belief can be a good thing and as someone who does not have any I'm some what envious at times of their faith but I also do not want someone else's beliefs enforced upon me. What I do with my body is my business and I'm afraid that should be the bottom line with abortion.

There cannot be any impingement on Women's personal rights.

Greg Mulholland and the Dorries amendment.

In the aftermath of the Dorries Amendment last week there were many stunned Lib Dems who looked down the Hansrad list and saw Liberal Democrat's who had voted for it.

One such name was Greg Mulholland, MP for Leeds North West. How could a Liberal Democrat vote for such Illiberal policy? Surely it would be naturally abhorrent to any Liberal? These "Liberals" are the enemy of all we stand for right?

I'm not so certain. Firstly, I don't agree with Dorries, I believe that a woman should be allowed to decide what she wants to do with her body and should be free to decide either way without being forced into termination OR keeping a pregnancy. My main problem with this whole episode was the way she delivered the whole speech and the way she attacked those who were offering up constructive counter arguments and didn't even listen to co-sponsor Frank Field and plowed on regardless.

Right now that's out the way lets address the Illiberal Liberals. I was under the impression that Liberalism allowed for us to accept that others have a different view to our own and that we should be open to debate? Should we not accept that Greg Mulholland has a different vantage point over abortion, disagree if we do, but ultimately respect that?

But his point of view threatens the freedom of choice by the mother and her freedom of action.

What of the freedom of action and of life of the unborn child? (I'm playing Devil's advocate, my belief's on abortion are a little misty as it is something I've not really had to think about in my life since school until now.)

It could be argued that you cannot make a balanced decision until you have received arguments from BOTH sides of the pro life debate.

Another point is that the Dorries Amendment was not a whipped vote. Nor was it a party political vote. It was a vote based on the MP's conscience and beliefs. Are we going to pillory a man who has beliefs contrary to our own just because they are contrary? If anything we should be admiring a man with beliefs who is standing to be counted by them and not worrying about the consequences. I admire soldiers of the Wehrmacht who struggled to defend Berlin, not because they were Nazi's but because they stood by their beliefs and fought.

Greg Mulholland is an asset to the party and especially in parliament. I watched his impassioned speech before the Tuition fee vote intently as he argued for fellow Lib Dems not to be sucked into the Coalition's plan and to stand by their pledge as he did. He wrote in the Mirror on the same lines.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/opinion/2010/12/09/greg-mulholland-mp-on-why-he-s-voting-against-the-government-115875-22771018/

He also convened the Lib Dem Back bench Group back in February this year to help put across the new back bench as it were to party leadership and for them to stand united stating;

"We look forward to working constructively with Ministers and the Liberal Democrat leadership to make the government programme as positive as possible in these difficult times, as well as bringing a distinctively Liberal Democrat perspective to some debates"

Clearly marking that sometimes it seemed as if a LibDem voice was being lost. If you follow him, as I do, on Twitter you'll notice that his tweets are all about his constituency and the work he does for it. His entry on Libdems.org shows his local involvement and states that he is first and foremost a local MP, not a party MP. His hard work for the people of Leeds should be commended as should his voting record. He stood firm against Tuition fees, he also voted against the NHS reform. Should we be so quick to wash our hands of him over a difference of opinion?

I don't think so. I foresee a great future in the party for him.

The Shadow of Dr Evan Harris.

Amid the clashing of sabres and the heated arguments that resounded through the House of Commons today one name was thrown around a lot, a spectre of the past that, according to Nadine Dorries, controls the party politics and the direction of the Liberal Democrat party. A spectre so powerful that even after losing his seat in last year's general election continues to hold sway over Nick Clegg and even David Cameron using bully tactics and blackmail to enforce his beliefs and whims. His name is Dr Evan Harris.

Evan Harris, the former MP for Abingdon and Oxford West has always had strong secular views and has worked for pro-choice and open debate on assisted suicides - earning him the well known nickname, which out of respect for Dr Harris, I will not repeat here as it is indeed awful to compare a man with firm political and secular beliefs with a well known SS Surgeon who experimented on the vulnerable etc. These are difficult subjects, ones that take a lot of moral fibre to discuss with complex debate and they need to be had.

Since he lost his seat in 2010 Evan has been working hard and is very prominent on the Social Lib Dem forum, a place where left leaning LibDems go to discuss policy, voice concerns and opinions. He is also one of the vice chairs for creating Federal Lib Dem policy. He has indeed had issue with coalition policy, as have we all at times and is one of the key movers and shakers talking about the NHS reform and the Dorries amendment. He has been vocal, on Twitter and other mediums about his views and ideas - but what is wrong with that? I've spoken with Evan through the medium of Twitter and joined the Social liberal Forum because I believe in the work they are doing and what they believe. I've always found Evan to be intelligent and calm with his tweets - Nor does he try to brain wash, rather reason and produce evidence.

Part of Liberalism and indeed politics is about having views, voicing opinions and getting the opposition to account for their ideas and statements rather than just letting them off the hook. Evan is also well placed to voice the views and opinions on the Social Liberal Forum along with Tim Farron, with the Party leadership in private and at conference, which again is a good thing isn't it?

However to suggest that Evan is a devious mastermind who has blackmailed Nick Clegg and David Cameron into doing HIS bidding is preposterous! As he is not an MP, nor have any specific power how can he enforce his will upon them? Didn't Dorries accuse Nick Clegg of talking the Prime Minister into backing down on Tuesday? Didn't she also say that the Lib Dems were too much of an influence on parliament too? It seems to outrageous to claim that Evan Harris is controlling the party like some twisted puppet master, he is but one voice - one voice in many. It was also unfair of another member to accuse Dr Julian Huppert of being ;

"Evan Harris' vicar on Earth"

Afterall Dr Huppert was merely stating an opposing view to Dorries that she didn't agree with that coincided with Evan's arguments. Dr Julian Huppert is a educated grown man capable of making up his own mind and deciding what he believes in, so why make it seem like he is Evan's mouth piece?

It was an unfair and unfounded comment by Nadine Dorries. Dr Harris is doing what anyone with a strong interest and belief in politics does, voice his opinion and argue rationally to support it. He is not some kind of evil Sith lord controlling parliament from a bunker in Abingdon with a roller rack of files with which to black mail Members of Parliament and the DPM/ PM. I sincerely hope Evan Harris continues to speak up for Lib Dem members who feel their opinions and beliefs are being maligned by the coalition. He is an asset to the party not a shady voice from its past.

PMQs: Nadine Dorries Question.

I've done something that rarely happens. I have left PMQs halfway through to sit and write, and write cross. (arguably I've written some of my best work cross!)

Prime Minister's Questions is an open forum for the Prime minister to be questioned about policy and direct issues to do with constituencies and since is televisation, and I agree with Charles Kennedy on this one, that it has become more of an open circus with people making media statements and trying to get noticed.

Any way today, and I should I have since this coming considering my previous post; ( http://gingerliberal.blogspot.com/2011/09/covert-whipping-and-nadine-dorries.html) Nadine Dorries asked the Prime minister;

"Considering that the Liberal Democrats make up only 8% of parliament why do they have such a large impact on Government policy? When will the Prime Minister tell the Deputy Prime Minister who is boss?"

Or words to that affect.

Firstly, a quick stats check... There may only be 50 Lib Dem MPs but 25% of the vote across the country was for the Liberal Democrats, so we are pretty unrepresented.

Secondly, the issue of abortion is being discussed by the whole house this afternoon and it isn't just the Lib Dems who oppose her amendment, in fact large groups across the country are against it, we are merely voicing their concerns which is what you are supposed to do in the House.

As for the Lib Dem influence on the Coalition? Maybe we do have a large influence, however there is a lot of common ground between our two parties and so a lot of the Government policy is naturally agreed upon and tweaked where necessary by both sides. We've had to sign off on things that we've not agreed on, Tuition Fees for example or Trident... The coalition is a partnership and we both have to make sacrifices - That's how it works!

I know, as I said in the previously mentioned post, that Ms Dorries thinks that Nick Clegg has influenced the Prime Minister and the letter that was sent to all MPs but this is not the case. She is frustrated that her amendment is not getting support and is looking for someone to blame. 

Both parties are in this Coalition together, and lets not forget why we are doing this, for "Real change" to the country and to sort out the massive deficit that has befallen the nation.

Will we always agree? No!

Do we negotiate and talk before finding a common ground that we can agree on like adults? Yes.

If Ms Dorries has a problem with the way the Government is being run, she should talk to her party leader, Mr Cameron and voice her concerns properly, not on national television in front of the whole house like that. It makes valid concerns that some Conservatives have about the government look like spoilt children.

We do not throw our toys out of the pram at PMQs just because we think the other kids are deciding what games are played. It's school yard and infantile and not the kind of grown up politics that this nation needs.

Covert Whipping and Nadine Dorries.

I Must admit I am a little late to the comings and goings of this debate but as I understand it – and do correct me if I’m wrong…

Ms Dorries wants to put an amendment to the Health bill regarding abortion.

The amendment is a long the lines of making all independent information, advice and counselling services completely to the NHS. Any private body that supplies advice must not be able to supply the termination.

On the face o f it this is a reasonable measure, it’ll give women more choice and could remove any essence of pressure to receive a termination.

However as Lord Steel pointed out, existing legislation already caters to that as patients have to talk to two doctors before being passed on to the clinic.

As a further back up the Department of Health can close any clinics that receive complaints.

Also another fear is that Religious groups and charities may pressure women into keeping the baby.

The amendment has attracted a lot of attention and mixed reception. Liberals feel that it should be up to the patient to decide what is best for her body without pressure from either clinics or religious groups.

Others, like Doctor Liam Fox, believe there are “Too many abortions” these days  and measures need to be taken. Then there is the pro life debate that I shan’t get into here. Lets just say the debate is very heated.

Now Ms Dorries has launched a rebuke as a letter was sent to MPs urging them not to vote for the amendment that was sent by Health minister Anne Milton. The move is unprecedented according to Ms Dorries and will probably have the affect of convincing some Conservatives who were wavering to vote for her amendment now.

The Prime Minister, although sympathetic to her cause has said that he will not support it.

Who is to blame for this lack of support from Mr Cameron?

Well it has to be Nick Clegg!

Ms Dorries blames Nick and claims he has black mailed the Tory leadership by saying that his MPs won’t vote for the Health bill if the amendment went through.

Nick Clegg has put pressure on the prime minister, the prime minister is putting pressure on MPs

However the BBC reports that sources near to Nick Clegg say that although there have been conversations about it there have been no demands. Indeed this won’t be a party political issue and is down to all MPs to vote by their conscience – indeed if it even comes up, after all there are 1100 amendments and speaker Bercow may not even call it.

This is a very divisive issue and one that is down to the individual and the MPs to decide without pressure from anyone however it also shows that the strains within the coalition between Liberals and Conservatives, for some of the more right wing orientated feel any wavering or “coolness” must be down to our presence in government. As Nick once said;

“The right just horrified at having Liberal Democrats in power.”