LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI suppose it hasn't occured to you that he was doing both, using the example as an illustration of a bad system? Or are you just being pedantic?
I suppose it hasn't occured to you that he was doing both, using the example as an illustration of a bad system? Or are you just being pedantic?
Hello Fingermouse.Originally Posted by hpp
Failed liberal traitors:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Greetings Janus.
You're missing the point - what is not at issue here (to my mind) is not the right to information, but the provision of public money by the CPA to an agency being essentially contingent on that group (i.e. Cura) providing information on how to procure an abortion. As far as I'm concerned, the CPA's remit should be changed so that groups that provide abortion information should be excluding from funding - in other words, encourage groups seeking public funding to provide information on alternatives to abortion. Privately funded groups can do what they like.She is not out of touch with public opinion.
Remember that in 1992 we voted to allow the right to travel and information on abortion in other countries.
Mary Harney should not take upon herself the role of a latter-day Grand Inquisitor searching for heretics.
As for these pro-life groups, I don't see the point of lobbying the Vatican on this - St Luke's might be more appropriate.
Actually, that isn't the issue here (at least, not in relation to the complaint). The issue is that certain groups are objecting to CURA styling itself a Catholic organisation, referring those women who want information on abortion to those organisations that will provide it. That's why the Vatican is involved.
The 1992 referendum decided, in effect, that people have the right to information about abortion services (or that Article 40.3.3 does not provide for the restriction of such information). The CPA's job is, in part, to ensure that Crisis Pregnancy counselling is available to all that need it, including those women who want information about abortion. That's why there's a service-level agreement that if CURA isn't able to give some women the information they want, they're obliged to pass them over to someone who will. If they don't want to do that, then they're under no obligation to accept the funding.
It's odd that LIFE hasn't come up though, as I assume they'd be covered by the same provisions, although maybe they're not an official Church organisation.
As an aside, state funding of pregnancy counselling services isn't new. It's been around for some time, but was administered by the Department of Health before the CPA was established.
As for this PM:
Failed liberal traitors:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
wtf?
No such pm smiffy.
Pm from smiffy:
Lay off. I'm only a poor old civil servant who can't find it in me to take sides on anything of importance.
Yes, I realise that. I was talking subjectively. As regards their complaint, these groups are apparently associated with Justin Barrett, which would explain a lot.
What I was objecting to was the remit of the CPA to provide public money to groups to provide abortion information. I simply don't find that acceptable. As you correctly point out, the RTI ref in 1992 established a right to access such information. As such non-publicly-funded organisations are perfectly free to distribute such information, but I think the CPA's current remit is unacceptable and certainly unacceptable to many FF supporters (such as yours truly).
As an aside, state funding of pregnancy counselling services isn't new. It's been around for some time, but was administered by the Department of Health before the CPA was established.
Reply With Quote