Time to write to my MP

[inulro]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6289301.stm

The Catholic Church has threatened to close their adoption agencies if, under new non-discrimination legislation, they have to allow gay couples to adopt.

Ho hum. So predictably Catholic church.

The outrage is that Ruth Kelly and Tony Blair think that allowing the Catholic church to go on discriminating against gays is Just Fine.

Why do I feel like I have woken up in Ireland, Spain or Italy in the 30s?

What is the Catholic church still doing running adoption agencies in this day and age? This is precisely why "faith groups" should never be allowed to run public services. And Tony Blair wants to see more of this kind of thing.

Coverage has also been weird. There was a short piece in the Independent yesterday, it was all over the Today programme this morning, but I had to search for it on the BBC news site and the Times (in both it is buried in the "politics" section), and it doesn't seem to be in the Guardian. Apparently the Big Brother shitstorm and the looting of the ship in Devon are more important news than another threat to equality and Tony Blair getting one step closer to turning this country into a theocracy.

Comments

[aoakley.livejournal.com]

To be honest this is journalist FUD.

The Catholic church don't run any public services. They fund some charities.

The Catholic-funded adoption charities account for less than 4% of adoptions in the UK (although to be fair they CLAIM to account for 1 in 3 adoptions of "difficult" children - their claim, and their definition of "difficult", so I'm skeptical of that claim) (Source: Today Programme, BBC Radio 4 this morning)

No minister has said that discriminating against gays is fine. However a number of ministers (notably, the Home Secretary) have clearly stated the government line that all religious viewpoints are fine so long as their followers don't insist they are pushed on everyone else.

In short, Catholics can spend their money however they like, and they can't and shouldn't be forced to spend otherwise. Since this is a vastly, vastly predominantly Anglican and secular nation, nobody should really give a toss what Catholics think, and the 4% figure for Catholic-provided charity adoption services backs this up.

Nobody should really give a toss what Catholics think

[inulro.livejournal.com]

By and large, I agree with that statement. Unfortunately, when two of those Catholics are Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly and it impacts on government policy, it's more relevant.

I was listening to the Today show this morning. Can't believe I drifted off during the big about the stats on Catholic adoptions. I'm also wary about the one in three number for difficult children - by and large, the children I'd think of as "difficult" would be in local authority care, and thus more likely to be handled by a more mainstream adoption process.

[quercus.livejournal.com]

The Catholic church don't run any public services
Only for rather sophist values of "public services".

The Catholic church runs some organisations. Secular government is keen to replace the work of its own services by the work of other groups, including the Catholic church's. So although you may be strictly correct to say "The Catholic church don't run any public services", it's still a matter of concern.

Not to mention the idea of a member of Opus Dei as a government minister. It's like the Spanner Trust, with added religious fundamentalist lunacy.

[ivory-goddess.livejournal.com]

is precisely why "faith groups" should never be allowed to run public services.

Yeah, but faith groups don't cost government money! Its a money-saving excercise, same as having charities 'help' with various other schemes (Fuel Poverty is the only one I know anything about but I can't beleive it's the only scheme-type thing that ropes in charities in order to get free help)

Frankly, I think we could probably cope very well without Catholic adoption agencies if they're going to be snotty about it. Besides, Catholicism isn't the only homophobic religion out there yet I don't hear any govt spokespeople saying it's ok for any other religion to ignore whatever aspect of policy they happen to disagree with... how come they're getting special treatment?

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

I've always felt the same way since I lived in Guelph and the two hospitals were divided into chronic and acute care facilities. The acute care was taken over by the Catholic hospital - therefore no abortions and no birth control. And they were the only two hospitals in town. Since when does a church get to make decisions about the appropriateness of medical care?

[50-ft-queenie.livejournal.com]

Yikes. Was there a student clinic at the university that would dispense birth control?

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Oh Gods, the student fucking clinic.

I had to lie to get a decent doctor in town, because if you called any of them and told them you were a student they would tell you you had to use the clinic. (Which is totally illegal by the way.)

They were understaffed and you had to be dying to see an actual doctor, almost all the cases were handled by nurses. Who probably meant well, but had to see 100+ students in a day. In order to even get to a nurse you had to explain to a receptionist in the middle of the waiting room what you were there for. I used to say really loudly, "IT HURTS WHEN I PEE!" just as a form of protest. Once I got so tired of dicking around with them I did my own swab on a blood agar plate I stole from the micro lab and brought it in to wave at them and demand antibiotics for what was obviously strep just like I told them a week ago.

I went to the local Planned Parenthood for my birth control. They were competent.

[inulro.livejournal.com]

Medical services in Peterborough were similar. I ran out of pills in the middle of the summer holiday and called a few doctors and was told that the only practice taking new patients was in one of the villages about 20 miles north of town.

I didn't have a car or enough money to eat anything other than ramen, so I certainly couldn't get there. In desperation I called student health services, who I thought would be closed during the summer. I didn't really have time to go up to campus either, but the receptionist put me through to one of the doctors, I explained my situation, and she phoned my prescription through to the downtown pharmacy. Saved. My. Life.

I heard lots of horror stories about the main doctor at the Trent student clinic, but the only time I went I saw the part time female doc, and she was really nice & helpful. (on reflection I must have gone more than once because I caught the dorm Chest Infection From Hell in first year and ended up on prescription cough medicine)

By contrast, Student Health at U of T was a lot more like a "real" medical centre, and most of the doctors taught at the medical school. I had an awesome GP there.

[50-ft-queenie.livejournal.com]

Western's student clinic was pretty good. Very good, in fact.

When I was in Toronto for the summers, I would go to the Bay Centre for Birth Control in Women's College, which was always a good experience. I've been giving money to Women's College every month ever since I got my tubes tied there.

Getting back on topic, my mother works at St. Joe's, and she chose to work there because it's a Catholic hospital and they don't do abortions. Abortion is one of many topics we don't talk about.

[inulro.livejournal.com]

That's one thing I never had to deal with growing up in Sask. - the two old hospitals in town had been traditionally one protestant and one catholic, but since the advent of medicare had been in the direct control of Sask Health and my mother can just about remember when the Pasqua Hospital was called Grey Nuns. I grew up all naive thinking that religious-led healthcare was a thing of the past in all first-world civilised countries

(I didn't find out about Quebec in the Dupleiss years, and Newfoundland in general, till I was an adult)