A case of Tory over-regulation?

I’ve already said broadly what I have to say about the Tory’s dog whistle politics regarding the embryology bill (although apparently last night’s Dispatches put a particularly sinister spin on things). My favourite example of this now has to be the fact that, in order to stave off accusations that his amendment is homophobic, Iain Duncan Smith has changed the wording of his amendment so that in addition to IVF children needing a “father” they would need a “mother” as well.

I don’t know how far he thinks the technology for test tube babies has advanced, but last time I looked we didn’t need an actual law to ensure that pretty much happened by itself.

2 thoughts on “A case of Tory over-regulation?

  1. Well I think whilst wrong it is consistent. Presumably they’re now having a go at those women, often lesbians it seems, who carry a child for a gay male couple and then sometimes leave the “two dads” to bring the child up?

  2. I think I mentioned the liklihood of this in the comments section of your last post. I [sadly] associate with some extreme right-to-lifers through work, and they were certainly in no doubt that this was about stopping women carrying babies for a male gay couple.

    This is an homophobic (and quite useless in practical terms) amendment. Any Lib Dem MPs who support this ought to be taken aside by the whips. This is NOT a matter of conscience, it’s bigotry pure and simple.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>