sophiefernandes's blog

Pro-life, pro-choice. A controversial subject at the best of times, but when Emily's List was recently reported to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner for 'buying votes', it opened up a whole new debate. So what is Emily's List, and why do pro-lifers think that the grants used to help women become elected are buying pro-abortion votes?
 
Let's start with what Emily's List is. It was founded in 1993 by Barbara Follett, the Labour Minister for women's rights. Emily is an acronym for 'Early Money Is Like Yeast' (it helps the dough rise) and it serves to offer grants to women who are seeking selection in the Labour Party. The grants awarded are for £250 per candidate and are offered for assistance in elections for Westminster, the Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament and in fact any political election. They are meant to assist with expenses such as travel and child / dependency care during a selection process.
 
So why are pro-life supporters trying to stop the grants? Well to qualify for the grant, candidates must sign a declaration saying they support the aims of the pro-choice campaign. The pro-life lobby argue that by signing the declaration and accepting the grant, the women are being undemocratic (essentially they are being accused of 'selling' their vote), unreasonable and also insinuate that these women are signing their lifetime approval to pro-abortion votes.
 
Partisan issues aside, these accusations are a fallacy.
 
Firstly, what Emily's List does is support women who have the same views and beliefs as the organisation. Nothing unusual there. If a grant is to be given by an organisation, there are usually restrictions placed on it.
 
Secondly, Emily's List does not 'buy votes'. At the time of receiving the grant, the women must sign a declaration identifying themselves as pro-choice - however, there is nothing which ties them into voting that way when actually called upon. Indeed, Claire Curtis-Thomas MP who was voted in with the help of an Emily's List grant has since changed her opinion and now votes in favour of reducing the abortion limit.
 
And finally, and let's make this very clear, Emily's List is not pro-abortion. Yes, you read that right. I repeat, it is not pro-abortion. It is pro-choice. There is a difference.
 
Promotion of pro-choice attitudes is one of the organisations aims, but it is not the only aim; and the promotion of pro-abortion attitudes is not an aim at all. Essentially, the organisation seeks to promote and support women's rights, for example, the right to run for election to be a political representative. As such, it also promotes and supports a woman's right to choice. This extends to the right to choose as to whether she wants an abortion or not. To have a right to an abortion as an option among many options; it does not represent it as the only option, nor necessarily as the right option. It simply forms part of the right for a woman to choose. This is the pivotal thing the pro-lifers both fail to understand and fail to endorse themselves. Unlike the pro-lifers, Emily's List does not pick and choose what rights women should and shouldn't have, it believes in endorsing women's rights totally. No ifs and no buts.
 
So next time you read an article condemning Emily's List, stop and consider: when it comes down to it, the argument is perhaps not simply pro-life or pro-choice, but anti-women's rights vs pro-women's rights. Which side of the fence are you on?

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

Yes, that's right - the wrong choice.

Why? Well let's not forget that essentially by 2009, Obama could not only be President, but Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces for the single most powerful country in the world.

With the US in the middle of a war that has no end in sight, is it wise to be considering a man with little to no foreign policy experience at a time when foreign policy experience is exactly what is needed? You just need to look at Bush to see what type of a foreign policy President a stint in the National Guard will produce - can the US really now gamble on a President with no military or foreign policy experience of any kind?

If his Presidential foreign policy were to follow an anti Pakistan rhetoric (as some of his early speeches have already touched upon), he could not only unnecessarily rile a military regime that is actually more liberal than its democratic opposition, but would also divert US military forces away from a battle ground which has not yet militarily, democratically, nor in hearts and minds been won. It would surely not have UN support, nor that of the public at home or abroad either. A foreign policy faux pas.

Despite the fact that votes are won and lost on domestic policies, the war in Iraq is still a contentious voting issue - so why are the Democrats considering a contender who has no foreign policy experience? Sure, he has been and still is a rising star in the Democratic party, and Newsweek were already giving him several page spreads a few years back, but that by no means proves his suitability for Presidency. Nor is it a military or academic foreign policy background which provides his credibility. Perhaps the reason instead lies in the colour of his skin.

Of course the US needs to progress and accept a black President at some point - so they should, and when they finally do, it will be a defining moment in US history; but that does not equate to choosing Obama for the wrong reasons. There is a certain danger in pushing the inevitable forward ahead of its time and causing unnecessary consequences. To push for Obama on race grounds at the expense of failing to recognise and acknowledge his downfalls as well at this important time would demean his election. It is what the US has been waiting for and indeed needs, but importantly, an ultimately poor Presidency rooted in naïve and inexperienced foreign policy choices would over-shadow what should be a glorious and defining moment in US history.

The US at the next election needs a strong, experienced, military and domestic President, regardless of race, who can lead a country, its people and its troops like a true Commander-In-Chief through these war torn times. That person cannot play a game of trial and error, they need to have played before and know how to win.

Burning out one of its brightest stars too early would be a colossal mistake for the US. There will be a time, and a place for Obama in US history - that time is just not now.

Eds Note - blog post written prior to Super Tuesday

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

As we start a new year, I have been pondering the report by Bernard Jenkin MP published by Conservative Way Forward which looks at commitments and resources of the British military. It makes for astounding reading, bringing to the fore the fact that more young men and women leave the forces every month than actually join - and it is hardly suprising. With many working for below basic minimum wage on hours far past what they should be working (there are no lunch breaks in war) many return, still exhausted both physically and emotionally to Iraq and Afghanistan for their second and third tours; it makes me wonder whether the government actually has any commitment to our forces.
 
To start, we have a part time Defence Secretary and quite honestly, something this appalling can never be brought to peoples attention enough. Then we have the past its 'use-by-date' aircraft such as the type of Nimrod central in the recent crash inquiry which Shadow Defence Minister Gerald Howarth reported should have been replaced four years ago. Well surely they must be well fed? Actually, no. As blogger Dizzy pointed out last month, on base the Army and RAF receive only £1.63 per day for meals compared to £1.87 for prisoners. I must have missed the press release announcing the hard labour prisoners do to justify more being spent on them than the people defending our country. Come to think of it, one wonders why anyone would risk their lives getting in military transportation, let alone go to war for the country.

We should be proud of and respect our troops and that respect needs to begin at national government level with the provision of up to date and safe equipment. Government needs to support the people who have decided that if necessary, they will lay their lives on the line for our country.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •  

Ann Coulter may or may not be a name that immediately springs to your attention. She is an American Christian fundamentalist and a conservative commentator. You may naturally think that, as a Conservative, you share common morals, ethics and ideals. Well you probably don't, and that is why I am continually surprised when her books are recommended at various British Conservative events. She is a Republican, and that is often why the more right wing of the Conservative party often offer her up as an ally.
 
Coulter has courted a lot of media attention and, as a result, a lot of airtime in the US. This however, has been heavily reliant on her mostly questionable comments on a range of controversial subjects. Her ultra right-wing repertoire has ensured she is one of the most controversial and outspoken commentators on American politics. So why should British Conservatives not consider her to be a role model?

Well, firstly, there are her comments on Muslim nations such as "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" which is offensive and quite frankly likely to incite hatred. Then she moves on to attack, on live television some particularly outspoken and media savvy 9/11 widows by declaring that "…these broads are millionaires… revelling in their status as celebrities. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much …by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy…". As if that wasn't enough, she goes out of her way to demean every woman in the US with her views on rights to vote. The argument she uses is simple, but unsubstantiated: she says America "would be a much better country if women did not vote". Do I need to go on? It is hard for even the most ardent right-winger to find even a shred of common ground with Coulter. Even the Libertarians in Connecticut turned her down as a candidate after meeting her (and they more or less accept anyone). 

Over the years the American public and many journalists have become increasingly vocal in their attempts to stop Coulter attracting the levels of media exposure she currently enjoys. Much like the BNP in the UK however, her controversial views generate her exposure and a media platform. Everyone loves a hate figure after all.
 
Of course, in the land of the free, Coulter has a right to express her opinions, but what exactly is her agenda? It seems simply one of money-grabbing, opportunism and attention seeking. There is no personal ideological message of which she is passionate, but a much more selfish motivation of a large retirement fund; after all, as Ronald Reagan said, " politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book".

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •