Rebecca Long-Bailey wants stricter abortion laws

[ofwarren]

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/rebecca-long-bailey-backed-stricter-abortion-laws_uk_5e204324c5b63211760eacf5
Just seen this on Twitter. I never knew she was a Catholic.

Can someone make a click link?

Wow!

m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/rebecca-long-bailey-backed-stricter-abortion-laws_uk_5e204324c5b63211760eacf5

Well I’m surprised at that.
Not that I’m a labour member and won’t be voting for a new leader anyway but I’m surprised.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/rebecca-long-bailey-backed-stricter-abortion-laws_uk_5e204324c5b63211760eacf5

Labour leadership candidate Rebecca Long-Bailey has supported stricter limits on abortion.

Long-Bailey told Catholic priests during the election campaign she would make sure their “views are heard” when it came to any changes to the law.

Under current rules it is possible to have an abortion up to 23 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy.

But there is no time limit on when an abortion may take place if there is evidence of a fatal foetal abnormality or a significant risk to the life of the mother if she continues with the pregnancy.

Long-Bailey said: “It is currently legal to terminate a pregnancy up to full-term on the grounds of disability while the upper limit is 24 weeks if there is no disability. I personally do not agree with this position.”

She’s allowed to hold personal opinions. Look at her voting record instead of her religion.

www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-07-18-438-commons/mp/25368

She doesn’t want stricter abortion laws.

Long-Bailey told Catholic priests during the election campaign she would make sure their “views are heard” when it came to any changes to the law

Why do their views need special provision to be heard?

I'm no longer a Labour party member but Long Bailey is the worst candidate by a long way, even without her pandering to the Catholic church.

She’s Catholic, so the Church will have approached her about voting in line with doctrine. Her reply is perfect. Saying she’ll ensure their ‘views are heard’ doesn’t commit her to voting or supporting their views in any way.

I think she’s a huge mistake for Labour as I don’t think she’s much more electable than Corbyn and we need a credible opposition. Twisting what she’s said to try and claim she will push for abortion restrictions when she has never done that and has voted to extend abortion rights to Northern Ireland is dirty politics. Yes, she won’t gain any ground for Labour but wilfully misinterpretation of her words to try and scare off her support is not acceptable.

Asking for your views to be heard is just what everyone else does when they approach their political representatives. Not taking various groups into account when thinking about social and political and economic questions is what has brought many of the problems we are facing now in politics. Instead only certain "official" groups are given status to lobby while others are ignored, or parties feel they can completely ignore populations who don't seem in line with their thinking on some issues.

Good social policy and a population that feels they have a real stake in politics requires that the views of all kinds of different people are considered seriously and given a chance to explain their perspective, with a real sense that leaders and representatives are listening with respect.

The Catholic Church generally isn’t shy about making sure it’s views are heard when it comes to abortion. They’re generally the ones standing outside with a placard picturing a 12 week fœtus in one hand and rosary beads in the other.

She voted against people being able to seek High Court consent to end their lives if they were terminally ill.

There's no way that could be abused. It just means people die after tremendous suffering, when they could do so in peace. I will never understand how people vote against that option. Some diseases are exceedingly cruel.

Has elective abortion been decriminalised then? I thought doctors were still using the mental health loophole?

Hmm, look what happened to Tim Farron, due to his religious beliefs.

Crikey, Labour really don't ever want to win an election do they?

Another reason that I find her to be the worst of all the candidates. I won't be voting for her.
(Not a popular view in my local Labour Party -which I joined after the election-but I care not)

Do you mean this PerfectStorm?www.theguardian.com/society/2015/sep/11/mps-begin-debate-assisted-dying-bill

There's no way that could be abused. It just means people die after tremendous suffering, when they could do so in peace. I will never understand how people vote against that option. Some diseases are exceedingly cruel.

Lots of people disagree that it could not be abused. Changes around this issue tend to change our perceptions around things like value of life and suffering, and lead to other changes. Often driven by courts. We can see that in other places where such laws have been passed.

Most people aren't keen to be cruel just for the sake of it, we all potentially could be in that position ourselves one day - life is a terminal disease - and many of us have people close to us who have suffered terminal diseases.

Long-Bailey said: “It is currently legal to terminate a pregnancy up to full-term on the grounds of disability while the upper limit is 24 weeks if there is no disability. I personally do not agree with this position.”

"It is currently legal" + "I do not agree" = it should be illegal (criminalised).
Presumably, then, her position is that women should be criminalised for ending their own pregnancies by making such medical decisions illegal.
Because what women's rights really needs is more women in prison for exercising bodily autonomy, rendered criminals for not complying with the law's directives on what they must do with their uteruses.

Either you want women criminalised for their terminations, some or all terminations, or you don't.
The former is what abortion laws do.
The latter is what decriminalisation does.
It is possible to support decriminalisation, support full bodily autonomy, and still wish personally to reduce terminations.

I don't think adultery, for example, is something I want to see more of in society.
I certainly don't wish to make it illegal or criminalise it though.
Therefore I agree with it being legal, and would reject calls (of which there are none, this not being a matter of legislating female medical decisions, obviously) for it to be tightened up in law.

Should women ever be criminalised or punished for any medical procedure with their own bodies that is in their own best health interests?

That's the question politicians should answer.

It is currently legal to smack your child. I personally do not agree with this position. I’m not going to campaign against it.

I took that to mean that she thinks termination of a disabled foetus should be more in line with that of a presumed healthy foetus, rather than unlimited.

intensicle if you disagree with the legality of smacking then you are stating that you agree with it becoming illegal.

To disagree with legality, is to endorse illegality.

Whether you would campaign or not isn't relevant, what is relevant is how you would vote if presented with the option to make it illegal in line with your position.

She will make sure the views of Catholic priests are heard? Well what has it got to do with them? Unless these are their children? (...which, now I mention it.)

Having watched The Magdalene Sisters then heard the stories about the dead babies in the septic tank, I am not inclined to hear the views of the RC Church on this subject.

Yeah mockers. Let’s make sure the catholic priests are listened to

As a Roman Catholic and a Labour member, I can categorically say I am not voting for her. She is not what we need at all....unfortunately with Momentum now backing her it looks far too likely.