As with all politicans who assume the role of Home Secretary, Teresa may has veered to the right of Genghis Khan.  She has proclaimed that she wishes to see the end of the Human Rights Act (Home Secretary Theresa May wants Human Rights Act axed).

"I see it, here in the Home Office, particularly, the sort of problems we have in being unable to deport people who perhaps are terrorist suspects.

"I'd personally like to see the Human Rights Act go because I think we have had some problems with it."

So, she wishes to be able to deport people who are possibly terrorist suspects?  What about due process?  What about individuals considered innocent until evidence proves otherwise?

Clegg's not keen:

"If Conservative backbenchers persist in wanting to tear up the European Convention on Human Rights, then I can foresee a time when this party would be extremely uncomfortable in coalition,"

Perhaps we will finally see some evidence that the apparently spineless Liberal Democrats will stant up to the more irrationally right wing elements of the Conservative Party.  Muscular Liberalism, anyone?

FactCheck: Nadine Dorries steps up abortion row | The FactCheck Blog

You can’t fault the vigour with which Nadine Dorries is pursuing her campaign to change abortion advice offered to women in England. But just as truth is often the first casualty of war, so it seems that as the Tory MP steps up her parliamentary offensive, the facts are in danger of being distorted.

Cathy Newman’s verdict

Nadine Dorries has in the past described late abortion as ‘murder’.  She speaks with some authority, because as a nurse she assisted in terminations.

And that is precisely what’s motivated her tenacious campaign to restrict abortion rights.

But Ms Dorries does herself a disservice by failing to stick to the facts. A distressed 16 year old who finds herself pregnant would not be sent on her way by Bpas.

To suggest otherwise is a scare story which doesn’t befit an MP, let alone a former nurse.

Presumably Nick Clegg find himself in the unfortunate position of having backed the wrong political horse.  Having allied himself and his party to the vile Tories such that they are effectively indistingushable, I suppose he must be worrying that in the event that the "coalition" was to fall his party would be obliterated in the polls.  Anyway, he's made some last minute effort to support the Tories' bill to destroy the NHS while trying to look as thought he's fighting to save the NHS (Clegg calls for 'probing questions' on NHS bill | Society | The Guardian).

Clegg: "Let me be absolutely clear. There is nothing, nothing, nothing in any of the government's plans which in anyway threaten the basic founding principles of the NHS...There is no question, legally or politically, of the secretary of state under these new arrangements being somehow able to wash his or her hands of the NHS."

Andrew Lansley, the man who may well go down in history as the man who destroyed the principal of free health care (surely a human right in a humane modern society) in the UK is unrepentant:

Clegg's move means that Lady Williams could be backed by Liberal Democrat ministers if she attempts to amend the bill to guarantee that the health secretary has a legal duty to deliver a comprehensive health service free at the point of need.

But a source at the Department of Health indicated last night that Andrew Lansley, the health secretary – who has already amended the bill after the government's "listening exercise" – would not accept fresh amendments on this point.

A Health Secretary without a legal duty to preserve a comprehensive health service?  Do tell me how this will save the NHS.

Here's a bizarre story from the Daily Express (Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Ex-spies to root out fanatics in classroom). Seems as though Michael Gove is sufficiently worried about Islamic extremists that he's established a gang of ex-MI5 agents to keep tabs on some of the products of his stupid Free Schools policy.

“I’ve been crystal clear we should not have schools set up by extremists whether they’re Christian fundamentalists,Islamic fundamentalists or any other sort of outrageous and beyond-the-pale organisation. We’ve set up a unit within the Department explicitly to monitor anyone who comes forward with a proposal for extremism. It’s more rigorous in the allocation of public money than any previous government department. In the last government, we had money going to extremist groups that was supposed to go to fight terrorism. Now we have a unit in place to prevent that.”

I wonder how he classes the Everyday Champions; proposal for a Free School? You know, the church that plans to run a school with seriously defective science education...

Mr Gove also said believers in fringe scientific movements such as “creationism” which rejects Darwin’s theory of evolution were banned from setting up schools. He said: “I’m passionate about science and I’m determined to make sure our country becomes more cohesive. I’ve said we will not sign any funding agreements with these organisations. More than that, we are reviewing the science curriculum, the national curriculum overall, to make sure there’s no space for the teaching of wackoidal theories.”

Mind you, the article does read more like a spoof news site than a national newspaper...what's with the "...anyone who comes forward with a proposal for extremism" and "...there’s no space for the teaching of wackoidal theories”? Did a Government minister really use the phrase "wackoidal theories? And if that's true, how come the Everyday Champions' proposal got as far as an interview?

[crossposted from Wonderful Life]

In all the furore over the Dorries-Field attempt to restrict women's reproductive rights, I believe that it's important not to lose sight of the fact that this reflects a mere handful of amendments to the rather larger legislative effort, a bill to reform the National Health Service.  Today's Observer has an article about Lib Dem peer Shirley Williams' concerns about the implications of the bill (Shirley Williams plunges NHS reforms into fresh turmoil | Politics | The Observer).  Above all, this bill seems to seriously threaten the future of the NHS - possibly the greatest social advance since WW2.

It's clear that the Conservatives want more private involvement in the NHS (and frankly, this is where Williams' LibDem colleagues in government really need to display this much-promised 'muscular liberalism').  Apparently secret emails have surfaced:

One of the emails released by the department shows that officials at the private sector firm McKinsey, which advises ministers, were in active discussion about bringing in overseas firms to take over up to 20 hospitals in return for contracts running into hundreds of millions of pounds. An email to Ian Dalton, head of provider development at the Department of Health, who is heavily involved in the reform programme, in November last year talks about "interest in new solution for 10-20 hospitals but starting from a mindset of one at a time with various political constraints".

The emails show that McKinsey is acting as a broker between the department and "international players" that are bidding to run the NHS. The documents even lay out some of the conditions required by "international hospital provider groups" for running NHS hospitals. "International players can do an initiative if 500 million revenue [is] on the table." They also need to have "a free hand on staff management". The NHS would be allowed to "keep real estate and pensions".

Williams is also quoted as saying "But why have they tried to get away from the NHS as a public service, among the most efficient, least expensive and fairest anywhere in the world? Why have they been bewitched by a flawed US system that is unable to provide a universal service and is very expensive indeed?"

Indeed.  And it is clearly time for Clegg and colleagues to stop being the supine quisling in this 'coalition' government, and stand up for principles of social justice.

Via the National Secular Society comes this appraisal of Nadine Dorries’ plans aimed at restricting women’s reproductive rights (Nadine Dorries’ abortion proposals – Fact and Fiction | National Secular Society).

The key issue here is the use of the word ‘independent’.  Dorries uses it as ‘independent from the abortion providers’, but knowing full well that the bodies she seeks to use for offering advice are anti-abortion organisations (and generally religiously motivated) intends Parliament and the public to misinterpret this as ‘independent” in a more general sense.

In this article, the National Secular Society has provided a detailed synopsis (with links) as to why this set of proposals are so thoroughly objectionable.

It’s interesting to note parallels between the devious language usage here and that used by American creationists – ‘Teach the Controversy’, where there is no controversy save in the minds of the cloth-eared creationists.  There’s a constant strain of dishonesty apparent in the way that those motivated by christian beliefs seem to try and influence policy.

Nadine Dorries, Conservative MP for Mid-Bedfordshire, has long desired to eliminate as many terminations of pregnancy as she possibly can.  She has repeatedly relied upon misinformation and untruth in her campaigns (see for example this, this, this, and this).  Her latest gambit is to file an amendment to the Health and Social Care bill due to be discussed in parliament next week.  This amendment seeks to require women seeking termination to receive ‘advice’ from a body distinct from the termination provider.

This is couched in language that on the face of it seems reasonable.  But it’s only in digging deeper that the serious flaws in the proposal become clear.  The advisory groups envisaged by Dorries are principally those with an anti-abortion agenda.  You can read more about the lies deceit and ignorance being spread by these groups in this Guardian article: Abortion: pregnancy counselling centres found wanting.  Naturally, those in favour of a woman’s right to choose over her reproduction are up in arms over this amendment.  It would seem from a later Guardian article that the depths of duplicity in this amendment may have finally sunk in to Number 10: Downing Street forces U-turn on Nadine Dorries abortion proposals ( though see below: Dorries has claimed this is untrue).  In my view, this ghastly MP is not making these proposed amendments through any desire to help women, but rather through a deep-seated objection to terminations.  This is shared with Frank Field, an MP with a long history od such objections.

I suspect Nadine Dorries is now feeling her PR advantage slipping away.  She’s now been posting increasingly hysterical articles on her ‘blog’.  Her blog, by the way, doesn’t permit any commenting and in any case is 70% fiction according to her.  This is the latest, posted Wednesday, 31 August 2011 at 23:45 [Blog articles at blog.dorries.org have a habit of disappearing once the author realises her foot is well and truly planted in her mouth, so I pasted the text below.  Its current URL is this. Emphasis in bold is mine]

For those who have read this in the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/31/downing-street-uturn-abortion-proposals

as has just been confirmed on Newsnight, Downing St has denied the story.

If Downing Street were going to do anything, does anyone seriously think they would give it to the Guardian first?

No, obviously, but Evan Harris would.

The truth behind the story is probably slightly more menacing, more menacing even than Evan Harris.

Bear in mind this amendment is to offer women the option of independent counselling, delivered not by the abortion provider, not by a religious organisation, but by one of the 80,000 BACP professional counsellors across the country who are prohibited at present from working with pregnant women.

It’s just an offer, they don’t have to accept it, however, those who have doubts and need help may do and if they do, then so be it, surely it is their choice?

Rumour has it that Evan Harris, abortion and assisted death zealot, is applying huge pressure to the office of Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister. That would be the no longer an elected MP Evan Harris.  It would appear that he believes he has immense influence on Government policy, more influence than elected Liberal Democrat MPs even.

I am led to believe that this story in the Guardian originated from him.

I am quite sure that the office of the DPM would like to have a little more information about what the public thinks before it tried to apply pressure on No10 to put the brakes on an amendment which has such huge support amongst women. When I say women, I don’t include those who write for the Guardian, obviously. Nick Clegg may also like to hang fire awhile and see what else pops up in the papers over the next few days. I can assure him, it will be far more interesting than anything Evan Harris has to say.

Isn’t this a bit strong?  And in any case, Dorries is economical with the truth when she says ‘independent’.   She is also wrong to claim that abortion providers seek to make profit from terminations.  I note a blog article (Abortion Amendments to the Health & Social Care Bill) at the Conservative Women’s Organisation blog concludes with this:

You still need two doctors to authorise a termination. Both of them weigh up the patient’s decision and will only sign if they believe that she has come to the decision independently and has considered all other choices – they would be negligent if they didn’t.

Instead of making abortion physically and mentally harder for women in the UK, we should be looking at prevention and education – and by this I do not mean we need to teach graphic details to 13 year olds and give lessons with condoms and bananas. Parents need to take a bigger part in the education of their children and talking about sex appropriately when they’re young is the best way to de-stigmatise it.

The fact is that the health and welfare of women would be affected in a bill that doesn’t mention termination once in its 420 pages.

I urge every MP, woman or man, on whatever bench, to allow women to choose for themselves. I urge every constituent to contact your MP to get your voice heard.

VOTE AGAINST the 3 amendments and do not allow the government to introduce any other comparable legislation.

As a final note, despite the appalling Dorries and her vile amendment, it’s important not to lose sight of other issues around the bill as a whole.  Some commentators have observed that it may well lead to the complete breakup of the NHS.

Ministers back anti-abortion lobby reforms | The Guardian

Charities warn of 'distress and delay' as they are stripped of principal responsibility to counsel women seeking a termination.

When exactly are the Lberal Democrats going to take a stand on repressive Nasty Party policy?  What happened to Nick Clegg's 'muscular liberalism' standing up to the Tories that was promised after their drubbing at the local elections?  Are the LibDem to be consigned in history as mere Tory lapdogs?

I am a firm believer in letting women make their own minds up about their own personal stance on abortion.  My not-so-delightful MP, however, seems to think otherwise, for example insisting that women seeking abortion must have independent counselling.  What this means in Dorries-speak is not what I might think of as 'independent' - such counselling must not be provided by agencies such as the Stopes clinic. 

Dorries has penned an article in the Guardian's Comment Is Free (I want to introduce more choice for those seeking abortion, not less).  Rather than perfom my own detailed analysis, I would prefer to point you to the piece by piece rebuttal at The Ministry of Truth, entitled:

Nadine Dorries is a Fantasist