US anti-abortion group lobbying Westminster

[LoobiJee]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/06/extreme-us-anti-abortion-group-ramps-up-lobbying-in-westminster

Thanks for that link, @Theeyeballsinthesky .

Yes, so that's a list of MPs to whom the ADF has immediate access.

From their name, it looks like this organisation has lighted on "religious freedom" as its choice of Trojan horse.

If the courts can find ways to not prision sex offenders, they can find ways to not prison women for having abortions.

We dont have to force a debate and risk losing in other areas. Its not just a religious right that are interested in using abortion legislation to control women, left wing TRA and surrogacy industries are interested too.

I dont trust the current crop of politicans of either side to have the foresight and the will to protect women as a class while drafting legislation.

Given the vast majority of late abortions are for medical reasons, and its the viability of life that people are concerned with, there isnt that much of a difference in attitude for the majority of people.

Conflict occurs when it becomes a debate between a right to choose verses life begins at conception. We dont need to go there to protect women having safe medical procedures.

All Party Parliamentary Groups can do excellent work, but are also well-known to be vulnerable to outside actors.

"APPGs are able to issue their own official-looking reports, generate media coverage, and, crucially, can receive outside funding — including from foreign entities — to aid their work. They can also provide a route for “secretariats” funded by private companies to gain passes allowing them access to the parliamentary estate, as well as the ability to shape the work of MPs sympathetic to their causes."

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-parliament-rishi-sunak-mp-westminster-warned-to-clean-up-its-act-on-parliamentary-groups-branded-total-jokes/

All Party Parliamentary Groups can do excellent work, but are also well-known to be vulnerable to outside actors

True. Or where deals are done and then go wrong when pesky wims exercise their democratic rights and certain MPs have a public shitfit, giving the game away...

Possibly they can also be where issues are parked and never dealt with. There's been (still is?) one on whistleblowing, which appears to have done some interesting and important work. But it's never had much action as a result. Speculatively, I wondered if it might have served a purpose (doing something without it doing anything IYSWIM).

I think we should as feminists be more hard line the other way, and support abortion "as early as possible, as late as necessary". It's easier to hold a black and white position and it would help stop these pro-life American groups nibbling round the edges.

I'd prefer to look at what position I actually want to hold, rather than simply plumping for an "equal and opposite" position to these campaigners.

Rushing to the polar opposite means they set the terms. One has the fight they chose, on the ground they chose – often from the position they chose for us.

No good can come...

(NB obviously if "as early as possible, as late as necessary" is already your personal position, then that comment doesn't apply to you. It does to me, though, as I am slightly happier with something close to the current situation in GB, perhaps with tweaks which improve access.)

This has happened in Glasgow at Sandyford, despite women's groups specifically asking that vigil protestors were not met with counter protestors, because it was escalating the situation into a confrontation which was not helping women trying to access the clinic.

(Transwoman/activist Beth Douglas had attended with inflammatory signage.)

"As early as possible, as late as necessary" isn't a black and white position. How early is "early as possible"? How "necessary"
if late? What is "late"? It sounds good but it is immediately open to query and a range of views, which unanchor us from the current position. No good can come of that.

I'm really sorry you experienced that @GrammarTeacher . I'm an evangelical Christian and I'm really horrified someone said that to you. Totally unacceptable, whatever the reasons were for your D&C.

This.

Fuck off with your cultural imperialism. We don't want your conservative Christians or your loony liberals in the UK, thanks very much.

We are, for the most part, more sane and sensible than you.

The aim for me is easy access to safe abortions, as others have said, as early as possible as late as necessary.

If that's thought of in terms of medical necessity rather than a womens right to choose, i dont think thats the worst fudge in the world.

I don't want a debate where we are treating some women as immoral for not wanting to be pregnant and others as part of the right for thinking of their pregnancy as a child with rights. We all could be both at different times in our life.

I am anti -abortion, but I do not think that a group from another country should be lobbying or protesting in this way in the UK. That said I personally would like to see the abortion limit reduced, I am a feminist and do not see the that my view is contradictory

This saddens me, but doesn't at all surprise me.

In the context of US Christian Evangelicals it's good to remember they are a different to UK Christian evangelicals - who are majority leftwing politically, even if socially more small c conservative.

For me, I do believe that a foetus has life and that this life is significant. I also believe that the needs of the woman are significant. Ultimately, life is messy and it's not for me to judge nor would I ever want women to be forced into back street abortions by a greater restriction on access to terminations.

Like most women (religious or not) I see a difference between a termination at 30 weeks than at 13 weeks. There is also a difference between a termination for medical reasons and because of choice. I don't think it's extreme to want the law to have some nuance, which our current law has. It recognises that life is complex.

I also strongly believe that the best way to be "pro-life" is to support women financially and with fantastic childcare and NHS as a country so that any woman who falls pregnant unexpectantly is making a real choice. Ironically the same politicians who are "pro life" and the ones who voted for the two child limit on benefits and who consistently underfund maternity services, sure start and education.

The reason I'm saying this is that even for those of us who are "very religious" in UK, many of us absolutely don't align ourselves with the American Christian right. I wouldn't want their brand of "pro-life" where women and girls suffer to be thought of as 'the Christian position'.

The only change in the law I would seek is to improve women's right to state support to raise their child, to make chosen adoption a more realistic choice, alongside legal and safe terminations.

Personally I wouldn't use the term 'pro choice' or 'pro-life' to describe my position and I wouldn't want a polarisation where everyone has to take a more and more extreme position. As you can see from the states, often that has really negative consequences.

It is my position. But I also think it's much easier to have absolute clarity at the extreme ends of a spectrum of opinions as the message is cleaner.
Ordinarily I'm all about the centre ground but not when it comes to female bodily autonomy.

(I also personally don't think the forced birth of an unwanted child just because it reached a certain gestation is good for that child either. There are all sorts of separation trauma issues or neglectful parenting issues that could ensue.)

I put this on another thread today but I think its also relevant here:
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1662061344814768129?lang=en-GB

On some issues, British Conservatives are even more liberal than US Democrats, such as on whether being Christian matters to being truly British/American, and — related — whether abortion is justifiable

This seems a naive take, especially given the recent challenges RE Down’s syndrome

Not a deep thinker then eh?

Not a deep thinker then eh?

This is precisely the sort of unpleasant remark that's going to elevate personal egos and damage women's rights, as we are viewed as collateral damage by those keen to take lumps out of each other (peanut in this instance).

It's likely I don't agree with greenlettuce but I'd not consider it productive to conclude something like this based on her post. And I don't think green's aim was to derail or to be unproductive, for clarity. Certainly wasn't my impression anyway.

They also don’t care about children otherwise no child would be without a home

@peanutbuttertoasty
Not sure what you mean by your comment, but please refrain from insults.

Please stop using their language. Do not use the 'A' word: Call the debate one of Forced Childbearing. Use 'termination' and 'prevention' as the description for procedures to stop unwanted childbearing.

Forced Childbearing is only one among many ways to use someone's body, against their will. R pe is a great favourite, particularly within the home.

The resulting impregnation of women and girl children doesn't matter much, in the traditional mindsets, and therefore legislation, made mainly by men , for men. Males get the 'fun' and the 'sub-humans', i.e. females, get the enforced childbearing. Then, the females can be left to worry about feeding and caring for these unwanted burdens. Men can leave.

Enslavement of the whole person is another tradition. (Again, for males, keeping women and children servile is popular, easy and convenient) This has the backing of many religions. Some religious leaders and texts also include approval of keeping slaves, if they are from the wrong religion.

And now, people could be captured to have their organs forcibly removed, when a rich person wants a living donor.... Why not, if humans don't have any right to decide what happens to their own live bodies?

Where is the difference between those things and forced childbearing?

Incidentally, it is time to allow people a right to decide what happens to their own dead bodies, too.... Paradoxically, since donor consent became the default assumption, the supply of bodies/ organs has fallen. (Spiteful thwarting of the relative's last wish, presumably)

They also don't care what happens to the foetus after its born - if they did they would be helping adoption charities and organisations working to help poverty stricken families.

But no, all the effort goes into taking away women's rights.

I don’t understand your comment Resistor, but I shall rephrase mine.

I cannot fathom how anyone can think of herself as a feminist but be anti-abortion. I can see nothing at all in banning abortion that supports women. Or have I missed something? How can being anti-abortion be pro-women? Perhaps it’s me who’s not thinking deeply enough to wrap my brain around that…? You can have preferences for your own choices, but wanting to control those of other women is another matter. Keen to understand the thinking there.

Rights are hard won and easily lost. We must be vigilant.

It's not my politics but I can understand why people are anti-abortion. Personally I think it falls apart pretty quickly once you decide women can and should be able to make their own choices though. I also think there is often (not always, but often) a pattern in that there's never any support offered to the mother to stay with her child, which I think can be viewed as anti-women and children.

I do also think that there are points in pregnancy at which society doesn't and won't accept abortion, and that advances in premature baby care and survival chances mean that the upper limit here will be debated at some point in time. When, I don't know, but it seems inevitable.

I also think the move to have miscarriages recognised in some way - while understandable from the perspective of the woman (and her partner) - is not a move that sits well with keeping what we have. I rather more imagine that as being vulnerable to hijacking the abortion position here than anything else. Mostly as it's not an area many would have their eye on.