No, seriously. What’s the actual point here? Politician does something? Person who’s tenure in a role is over continues to follow their views? She’s not even the source of the amendment nor does the article state how much support it has.
As best as I can tell the article just exists to criticise a single now irrelevant peer, presumably out of revenge or pettiness. There’s no focus on the amendment, it’s source or how many of the other hundreds of peers support or oppose it, all factors that should be relevant if there’s anything more to the article than “person bad”
That’s a fair opinion to hold but it’s *not* news.
The_Bravinator on
Oh, here we go. How predictable from those who claimed they were all for women’s rights.
I used this scheme myself in January. It was half the cost of a surgical abortion in a clinic. It was well regulated, and while my contact with doctors was through video calls, they were responsive, reassuring, and sensitive in a difficult time.
I went with this pills by post option from a private clinic because the NHS couldn’t even get me an initial appointment until *weeks* later. So in my case at least the ability to go private by post did the opposite of what this woman is concerned about—it allowed me to end the pregnancy at a much earlier and LESS developed stage. And it was a dignity I desperately needed to be able to handle it in my own home, with my own support network around me. I couldn’t imagine not having had access to this.
hime-633 on
Look. I think overall it is a good scheme.
But the points she is raising are not anti-women.
E.g., from Hansard: “Women may well be—although not in this particular case—coerced by partners to take pills when they would not otherwise have wished to do so. Perhaps noble Lords who have tabled amendments to do with face-to-face consultations have that in their minds, as a face-to-face consultation would require deeper insights on the part of medical professionals—pills by post do not.”
Just because someone holds a different view from you on one topic does not mean they are always wrong or somehow inherently nefarious.
Many things are not black and white. The points she raises about e.g. vulnerable women being coerced into taking pills by an abusive partner, about trafficked women being forced to take them (since the [edit] *lack of* face to face aspect takes away the opportunity for a healthcare worker to assess whether the woman is vulnerable etc) are valid.
Can we all just embrace a little more nuance, please?
UnravelledGhoul on
So the transphobes are going after other groups now that they’ve fucked with trans people?
Almost as if we warned this would happen!
Cynical_Classicist on
Ah yes, this is the same energy that had Janice Turner in The Times call the rapist a feminist hero.
HMWYA on
Absolutely unsurprising that those who have built an entire political philosophy on trying to undermine and decimate the right for individuals to have bodily autonomy would stop this fight at just denying trans people healthcare.
Emotional-Ebb8321 on
Every ehrc decision made under her leadership should now be reviewed, given the demonstrated conflict of interest.
7 commenti
And?
No, seriously. What’s the actual point here? Politician does something? Person who’s tenure in a role is over continues to follow their views? She’s not even the source of the amendment nor does the article state how much support it has.
As best as I can tell the article just exists to criticise a single now irrelevant peer, presumably out of revenge or pettiness. There’s no focus on the amendment, it’s source or how many of the other hundreds of peers support or oppose it, all factors that should be relevant if there’s anything more to the article than “person bad”
That’s a fair opinion to hold but it’s *not* news.
Oh, here we go. How predictable from those who claimed they were all for women’s rights.
I used this scheme myself in January. It was half the cost of a surgical abortion in a clinic. It was well regulated, and while my contact with doctors was through video calls, they were responsive, reassuring, and sensitive in a difficult time.
I went with this pills by post option from a private clinic because the NHS couldn’t even get me an initial appointment until *weeks* later. So in my case at least the ability to go private by post did the opposite of what this woman is concerned about—it allowed me to end the pregnancy at a much earlier and LESS developed stage. And it was a dignity I desperately needed to be able to handle it in my own home, with my own support network around me. I couldn’t imagine not having had access to this.
Look. I think overall it is a good scheme.
But the points she is raising are not anti-women.
E.g., from Hansard: “Women may well be—although not in this particular case—coerced by partners to take pills when they would not otherwise have wished to do so. Perhaps noble Lords who have tabled amendments to do with face-to-face consultations have that in their minds, as a face-to-face consultation would require deeper insights on the part of medical professionals—pills by post do not.”
Just because someone holds a different view from you on one topic does not mean they are always wrong or somehow inherently nefarious.
Many things are not black and white. The points she raises about e.g. vulnerable women being coerced into taking pills by an abusive partner, about trafficked women being forced to take them (since the [edit] *lack of* face to face aspect takes away the opportunity for a healthcare worker to assess whether the woman is vulnerable etc) are valid.
Can we all just embrace a little more nuance, please?
So the transphobes are going after other groups now that they’ve fucked with trans people?
Almost as if we warned this would happen!
Ah yes, this is the same energy that had Janice Turner in The Times call the rapist a feminist hero.
Absolutely unsurprising that those who have built an entire political philosophy on trying to undermine and decimate the right for individuals to have bodily autonomy would stop this fight at just denying trans people healthcare.
Every ehrc decision made under her leadership should now be reviewed, given the demonstrated conflict of interest.