As John Smeaton confirms:
David Cameron confirmed this evening that he would not vote to reverse current discrimination against unborn disabled babies who can be aborted right up to birth since the law was changed by Parliament in 1990. Mr Cameron made a similar commitment in a Daily Mail interview earlier this year on which I blogged at the time.
I heard this news from Rachel and Bill Peck who attended a "Cameron Direct" Question and Answer Session this evening in Barrow-in-Furness. Rachel asked David Cameron. the Conservative leader, the following question: "In 1990 when Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act discriminated against the disabled by allowing disabled babies for the very first time to be aborted right up to full term. My question is: If in power would you favour measures to reverse this discrimination by giving unborn children who are disabled the same protection under the law as currently enjoyed by all other children?"
David Cameron answered: "A short answer first then a longer one. My personal view about that is no. I think abortion votes, and votes on embryology, and votes on all of those things should be free votes. They are matters of conscience and on the last embryology bill we’ve just had I pushed very hard (if you remember, the Prime Minister wanted to have whipped votes like they had whipped votes in the House of Lords) and I said this is wrong; this is a conscience issue; this is one where MP’s have got to examine their consciences, listen to their constituents, and explain their positions and it should always be a free vote. So it should always be a free vote. My own view is yes, I think that we should change the abortion limit down from 24 towards 20 weeks; I voted that way and I think it would be right to do that. But in the case of parents who have medical evidence that they may have a very disabled child, I would not want to change that. And I speak as someone, I mean, I’ve got a six year old boy who is severely disabled has cerebral palsy and is quadriplegic and he’s a sweet boy, he’s a lovely boy Ivan, and, you know, it is though incredibly tough bringing up disabled children and I don’t want to kind of put myself in the position of saying to other parents you’ve got to go ahead and have that child or you can’t have an abortion or you can do this or you can’t do that. Personally Ivan, he’s brought incredible things to my life but it is an enormous challenge and I don’t think it’s right to sort of tell other parents if you hear that you’ve got a very disabled child on the way, that actually doing something about it isn’t an option. That’s my view.”
Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, of course, voted three times for this discriminatory legislation in 1990. David Cameron was first elected to Parliament in June 2001.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Do you agree with Cameron that it should be a free vote?
ReplyDeleteI'm never going to vote Tory anyway, so what do I care?
ReplyDeleteDon't vote Tory. There are many reasons. This is one of them.
It will be a free vote, whoever wins the election. Tory MPs, on average, consistently vote for a lower abortion limit than Labour MPs. If the Tories win the next election, there is much more chance of restricting abortion than if Labour wins. People for whom restricting abortion is the biggest concern should, in general, vote Conservative.
ReplyDeleteDrivel, as the Director of one of the main pro-life organisations clearly also thinks.
ReplyDeleteAmerican Catholics and Evangelicals have been hoodwinked like this into pointlessly voting Republican for nearly forty years now, although thank God that they are finally wising up.
All they have ever got is all that they would ever get out of any of the three British parties these days - big business and big war, both of which are contrary both to their interests and to the principles of their respective traditions, and indeed contribute in numerous ways to abortion.
The abortion law is completely unchanged there. As it would be completely unchanged (if not actually made even worse) here, entirely regardless of which of the three parties won.
It's not drivel at all. See this analysis of abortion votes and party affiliation by Prof Philip Cowley.
ReplyDeleteAnd he is?
ReplyDeleteMost pro-life voters (Catholics and those in the black churches) are tribal, visceral anti-Tories, anyway. Forget it.
See also this analysis of this year's abortion votes, also by Cowley.
ReplyDeleteKey lines:
"The key vote – the 22 week time limit which was defeated by 71 – also saw some of the sharpest party divisions. Of the Conservatives to vote, 83% backed a reduction to 22 weeks, compared to just 20% of Labour MPs."
But do read the whole thing.
There's no point. It's all a con. Don't fall for it. The Catholic and black churches' pews are full of people who won't.
ReplyDeleteAnd he is?
ReplyDeleteHe is Professor of Politics at Nottingham University, and the leading expert on backbench voting behaviour. See here.
I'm surprised, given your interest in politics and your self-satisfied challenge to BDJ, that you haven't heard of him.
Oh, I'm not a Tory. Not in the least. I won't be voting for them. This is just one of the reasons.
ReplyDeleteIt was a rhetorical question. He's not John Smeaton, Director of SPUC, is he? Nor is he Phyllis Bowman. Nor is he Jack Scarisbrick. Nor is he ... well, you get the idea.
ReplyDeleteDon't vote Labour or Lib Dem either, of course.
He's not John Smeaton, Director of SPUC, is he? Nor is he Phyllis Bowman. Nor is he Jack Scarisbrick.
ReplyDeleteNo. I'd pay far more attention to him than I would to them.
Which says it all, really.
ReplyDeleteAnd I say agin, you are pitching at people who would never vote Tory in a million years, no matter what. That simply isn't where the Catholic or the Afro-Caribbean vote is, or ever will be.
Eh? Who do you think I'm pitching at?
ReplyDeleteWell, you are trying to get pro-lifers to vote Tory. They won't, and nor should they.
ReplyDeleteAfter Cameron, Osborne, who voted against lowering the time limit.
And who voted to abolish fatherhood when he himself is the heir to a baronetcy. How thick is that!
Well, you are trying to get pro-lifers to vote Tory.
ReplyDeleteNo I'm not. I don't want anyone to vote Tory. I'm just saying that Tories are more likely to deliver a lower abortion limit. Which I oppose.
Well, then, my point really IS proved.
ReplyDeleteBut you are still wrong, of course, in a different way.
David Cameron is a miserable creep.
ReplyDeleteNo, obviously it shouldn't be a free vote.
On the other hand, it's hard to see how the Socialists are preferable. (The same goes for a wasted "protest" vote.)
"On the other hand, it's hard to see how the Socialists are preferable."
ReplyDeleteIf you mean New Labour, they are not.
"The same goes for a wasted "protest" vote."
If that's what it is. Pro-life won the SNP the Glasgow East by-election.
Our people on the ballot paper in every region in June not only stand a good chance of getting elected in several cases (the North-West, full of Catholics, has nine seats to fill; London, with so many people in the black churches that it is in fact more observant than the country as a whole, also has nine; and so forth), but also provide the opportunity to identify 50 seats in each of which we would, after all, only require the single highest number of votes cast in 2010, when overall turnout will be through the floor.
If we didn't win 25 of them, then we simply wouldn't be trying. But we will be trying. Very, very, very hard.