You'd think I was retired, the amount of time I spend harassing my poor elected representative. Next I'll be writing terse letters to my local newspaper about disrespectful youths and how I've grown so fearful I don't let my corgis outside any more. Nevertheless:
Dear Ms. Ruddock,
Frank Field and Nadine Dorries' recent underhanded moves in regard to  women's safe and timely access to abortion services have just come to my  attention and caused me considerable concern. No doubt I'm preaching to  the choir here, but I nevertheless wanted  to reaffirm that your constituents will not stand for any more gross  attempts on women's rights by religious fanatics and misogynists. If you  can do anything at the legislative level to prevent their “little  modifications” from being introduced into law, please  nip this in the bud as soon as you can.
I moved to Lewisham in 2009 from South Carolina, an impoverished  wasteland of Bible Belt Americana. While I would not describe myself as a  refugee, my partner and I did very deliberately choose to move me here  instead of him to the US simply because the UK  did not appear to be teetering on the edge of a catastrophic Christian  takeover at the time. So when I saw that LIFE ousted BPAS on the sexual  health council a few months ago I greeted the news with dread—I knew  more Fundie garbage would be dumped in our laps  in time. And sure enough, now MPs Field and Dorries are seeking to  sneak new regulations into the healthcare bill that will at once require  women to receive unnecessary counselling and prevent abortion providers  from offering it, a measure which would place  private organizations with private motives between women and their  reproductive rights. This, I'm confident you'll agree, is an outrage.
This sort of twelfth-century legislation crops up in the US all the  time—most notably in South Dakota. There women must receive counselling  from an independent “crisis pregnancy center” at least two weeks before  receiving an abortion. All of these centres in  the state are church-run, anti-choice, and make a point of misinforming  women—from lies about cancer risks to fibs about complications,  infertility, and God's Wrath, they'll make up anything. Then, of course,  they don't stamp the necessary forms to prove that  advisees came in—they just cheekily refuse to allow women to meet that  requirement. Not that this matters—the state has driven out all abortion  providers, even for when a woman's life is in jeopardy. Distressed  women now have to cross to Wyoming to receive  treatment--a trip of hundreds of miles, followed by weeks of paying for  accommodation while they wait.
It is vital for the health, safety, dignity, and personal sovereignty of  all women that these outrageous attempts are stopped in their tracks,  and for the perpetrators of this attempted crime against women to be  reprimanded. These scum have seen the “perforate and  tear” approach crush women's rights in backwoods America and figure it  is worth a shot here. It ain't. Please help them see that what they're  attempting is unacceptable in any decent society.
Warm regards,
Ms. KG
P.S. Oh cool--I just discovered that a group of choice supporters will  be rallying on the 9th of July in the Old Palace Yard, Parliament  Square, from 13:30-16:30, over just this issue. I think I'll join them.
---And she replied!
Thank  you for contacting me about your concerns over the amendments to the  Health and Social Bill tabled by Nadine Dorries MP and Frank Field MP. I  agree with your comments and please be assured that if the amendments  are selected for debate or brought to a vote I will be opposing them. If  there is an attempt to introduce them without debate I will certainly oppose that as well. Yours sincerely, Rt. Hon. Joan Ruddock, MP
And her assistant tacked on a reply too:
I hope  you don’t mind me adding to Joan’s letter. I don’t know if you attended  on Saturday – I was there and thought it was a very good event. Best wishes, Ms. Senior Parliamentary Assistant
Friday, July 15, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
 
3 comments:
Good for you. Nice that she replied - and I love her assistant's signature/title. ;)
I thought it would be rude to reprint her name without asking. Joan's name gets printed all the time, and it's no great revelation that she opposes this or anything like it.
Oh, haha. I thought that WAS how she had signed it. Doh.
Post a Comment