Picketing is not something that the mainstream British pro-life organisations really do, anyway.
This rather un-British behaviour attracts adverse publicity to the cause, but it is not very common over here.
It has been imported from, and largely by, the American lot.
Theirs is a spectacularly unsuccessful movement whose only function is to lose the Republican Presidential nomination once every four years, and then to pretend that they had somehow won it. In 2012, they were reduced to urging a vote for a Presidential candidate who derived an income from the public funding of abortion in the state where he had legalised such funding. In 2016, they stooped to supporting a candidate with a long record as a generous donor to Planned Parenthood.
Theirs is a spectacularly unsuccessful movement whose only function is to lose the Republican Presidential nomination once every four years, and then to pretend that they had somehow won it. In 2012, they were reduced to urging a vote for a Presidential candidate who derived an income from the public funding of abortion in the state where he had legalised such funding. In 2016, they stooped to supporting a candidate with a long record as a generous donor to Planned Parenthood.
All of that said, however, Amber Rudd's proposal to outlaw such picketing, something that never happened under a New Labour Government steeped in feminism while unacquainted with trade union activity, is further evidence of just how ferociously pro-abortion this Government is. By accepting an amendment to the Queen's Speech, it did not even bother to hold a parliamentary vote in order to provide funding in England and Wales for abortions for women from Northern Ireland.
The last time that there was a Commons vote on abortion, a generation ago, the Thatcher Government legalised it up to birth, dutifully opposed by John Smith and Charles Kennedy, by Ronnie Campbell and George Galloway. So it is for abortions up to and including partial birth that this new provision will be paying. Apparently, though, the fetus is both "a part of the woman's body" and "insentient". Is it the whole of a woman's body that is insentient? Or is it only the parts that are directly concerned with reproduction?
The last time that there was a Commons vote on abortion, a generation ago, the Thatcher Government legalised it up to birth, dutifully opposed by John Smith and Charles Kennedy, by Ronnie Campbell and George Galloway. So it is for abortions up to and including partial birth that this new provision will be paying. Apparently, though, the fetus is both "a part of the woman's body" and "insentient". Is it the whole of a woman's body that is insentient? Or is it only the parts that are directly concerned with reproduction?
No comments:
Post a Comment