# Write to your MP about the HFE Bill before 20 May



## NatGamble (Mar 1, 2007)

The vote on the 'need for a father' in the House of Commons will take place on Tuesday 20th May. Stonewall are urging people to write to their MPs, and as this is a free vote it could make a real difference. I've also heard murmurings that the 'need for supportive parenting' might be replaced with a 'need for two parents' (which would obviously help same sex couples but not single women) so all you single ladies need to fight for this too!

Please see further info at:

http://boards.gingerbeer.co.uk/index.php?topic=79493.0

and please please take the time to write

Natalie

/links


----------



## NatGamble (Mar 1, 2007)

It's so difficult to say.  At the moment clinics have to 'consider' the need for a father.  In the past they interpreted that as meaning that they couldn't treat single women at all, but things have shifted over the past few years, and almost all clinics now pretty much ignore the requirement on the basis that it's outdated  (which they can get away with because they only have to 'consider' the need for a father).

The worry is that if Parliament actively decides to keep the 'need for a father' consideration (or replace it with a 'need for two parents' or whatever), then this could trigger clinics to reassess where they stand, and they may well then decide that they can't ignore it, and therefore go back to denying treatment to single women.

This is the worst case scenario, but it's what we're all trying to avoid happening.

Urgh!


----------



## Charlies-Mum (May 25, 2005)

Hmmmm - so its ok for someone to have a one night stand, forget to ask for a name and address, end up up the duff and parenting alone.

BUT someone who carefully plans, weighs up the options and still wants to have a family on their own, is penalised by the pen pushers in their ivory towers.

Does that seem wrong to anyone else?


----------



## NatGamble (Mar 1, 2007)

Yes totally.  It's utterly mad.

If you follow the link I posted above, it'll take you to the statement from Stonewall, which tells you exactly what to do (and links to a website where you can search for your MPs contact details by postcode).


----------



## suitcase of dreams (Oct 7, 2007)

Thanks for posting this Nat, I'll follow the link and do it over the weekend. And please all you other single girlies - do the same...

I don't usually get involved in politics of any kind, and I've never really wanted to draw attention to how I'm going about starting a family, but this whole thing makes me so angry.

As Charlies-Mum says, how dare they propose to discriminate against those of us who have made a carefully considered and well thought out decision? 
I have a highly paid permanent job, own my own home and have carefully established a network of family and friends to support me and my future child(ren) and yet the proposed changes to the law would suggest that it's OK me to go out and sleep around and take my chances, but it's not OK for me to create my family in a safe and controlled environment? Completely mad....

So pls all, write to your MP before this goes to the Commons vote on the 20th,
Laura
x


----------



## dottiep (Nov 20, 2007)

Agree it's total madness! 
Will write the letter this weekend & urge everyone to do the same.

Dottie


----------



## ♥JJ1♥ (Feb 11, 2006)

I've emailed my MP with a letter.


----------



## suitcase of dreams (Oct 7, 2007)

Ok, I know this is really lazy of me, but I've been working all weekend (to make up for the time I took off whilst pretending I was 'working from home' through EC and ET this week) - would JJ or Dottie (or anyone else who has written one) mind PM'ing me the letter you sent to your MP so I can copy/paste and send to mine? 
I know I should write one myself, but totally run out of steam now....

thanks girls!
Laura
x


----------



## dottiep (Nov 20, 2007)

Laura,

I haven't actually done it yet....I read the link that Nat sent through but it seemed to be targetted to lesbian couples.  Just in case I'm being a bit blonde......my understanding if that the new bill will reinforce the need for a father and hence discriminate / stop us from having treatment - is this the case?  If so, I'll just write something to this effect

x


----------



## suitcase of dreams (Oct 7, 2007)

Yes, I checked Nat's link too but it was specifically aimed at Lesbian couples and I was just feeling too lazy to write something more appropriate to single girls

I think the main issue is that if parliment decides to keep the 'consider the need for a father' clause as a pre-requisite for fertility clinics when deciding whether to give treatment, or if they decide to change this to 'consider the need for two parents' - or worse, if they strengthen it to say something along the lines of 'must have a father/two parents' then that will effectively rule single women out of any fertility tx through a clinic at all.....

So we essentially need to write to ensure that our MPs vote to either remove this clause entirely, or to keep it as it currently is - a guideline for consideration rather than something definitive (ie a means to deny tx to single women). And I guess we need to emphasise how carefully we have made our decision to bring a child into the world, and how there is no evidence that there is any negative impact on children of single mothers by choice like us (ie older, professional women with good incomes and stable backgrounds) - from an intellectual or social perspective....

I kind of know what needs to be said, I'm just not really in the right mind state to write it very eloquently at the moment....will try to draft something tomorrow when I'm feeling a bit more awake...

Laura
x


----------



## NatGamble (Mar 1, 2007)

Here's some wording you might want to use:

On Tuesday 20th May I understand you will have the opportunity to exercise your free vote on the issue of whether fertility doctors should have to consider a child's 'need for a father' before offering fertility treatment.  I urge you to support the proposal to update this wording to the 'need for supportive parenting' to ensure that I - and other single women like me -have access to safe licensed treatment to start a family, and are not forced to resort to riskier methods of getting pregnant.  

Updating the 'need for a father' provision will be of very little practical effect.  Fertility treatment using donor sperm is already widely available to single women because clinics regard the existing law as outdated and redundant.  However, a positive decision to re-implement the 'need for a father' could force clinics to readdress their current practice, and this could threaten the availability of treatment to single women.  

There is no evidence that children raised by committed solo mothers who choose single parenthood are any worse off than children raised by heterosexual couples, so there is no justification for keeping the 'need for a father' consideration.  Please support me, and others like me next Tuesday, and help ensure that single women who wish to become mothers are able to do so safely.



Apologies that the link I posted was lesbian-focused - I just thought you'd find the link to the MP search useful.

Natalie


----------



## dottiep (Nov 20, 2007)

Natalie - thanks for that! It's a big help.  I'll get on to it straight away.

Dottie


----------



## dottiep (Nov 20, 2007)

Thanks for your support feehilyfan - every bit helps.
Just read your 'signature'  - made me well up a bit!  Hope everything going well for you.

x


----------



## **Tashja** (Jan 13, 2005)

I am not a single woman either but have e-mailed as this is just daft !!!

Our MP is a complete waste of space and time but you never know - the idiot might have some uses !!

T xx


----------



## Roo67 (Feb 12, 2007)

Thanks Natalie - Really helpful, have just e-mailed my MP.

Thanks to all those non-single ladies that are prepared to offer us support.

Roo xx


----------



## suitcase of dreams (Oct 7, 2007)

Thanks Natalie for this, I will mail my MP now

Laura


----------



## kylecat (Oct 18, 2007)

hey girls - I have e mailed my MP today about this - please can everyone else do the same. Thanks Natalie for the wording.

Don't forget when e mailing your MP to include your postal address so they can verify that you are one of their constituents,

Katiexx


----------



## Elpida (Feb 11, 2008)

I just emailed - thank you for the wording Natalie.


----------



## suitcase of dreams (Oct 7, 2007)

Tricky one Ju - sounds like your MP is quite a traditionalist....but at least you tried - there's not much more you can do. I suspect changing someone's view on this via email in a short space of time probably isn't going to be possible. Let's hope a well argued debate sways him in favour of a more open clause rather than a restrictive one

At least you got a reply - not heard a word from mine yet...

Laura
x


----------



## Damelottie (Jul 26, 2005)

I never hear back from mine - I write regularly about things  . But then I was quite active politically in the elections for his opposition  . Still, I shall try again...........

Back luck Ju. Maybe you could reply and ask him if his wife thinks its necessary


----------



## Roo67 (Feb 12, 2007)

This is the reply I have just recieved

Dari will definitely support the amendment 'need for supportive parenting' as opposed to 'need for a father'.

I hope that this reassures you. If you have any other concerns please do not hesitate to contact Dari again.

Quite surprised I got a reply so quickly and so positive too. She is female - so whether that made a difference.

Roo xx


----------



## Lou-Ann (Apr 20, 2008)

Thanks for the wording Natalie, I have just emailed my MP.

Lou-Ann x


----------



## NatGamble (Mar 1, 2007)

Hi Ju - my MP is Desmond Swayne too.  I haven't yet had a response to my letter so that's disappointing.  Still we can't win everyone over.

He's wrong though!

Hey - we must live near each other!


----------



## ♥JJ1♥ (Feb 11, 2006)

My MP hasn't even replied - I got an auto response so it has arrived!
L x


----------



## Mistletoe (Holly) (Jan 1, 2007)

Just watched the vote on BBC parliament. Majority of 68 for "no requirement for a father or male role model as a condition of licenses for IVF treatment" and to replace it with a need for "supportive parenting".

Thank goodness for this. I wrote to my MP - I hope it made a difference. Thanks to everyone else who did.

I was so scared that after my husband has abandoned me on this journey, yet another door was going to be shut.

Now - what does "supportive parenting" mean


----------



## Damelottie (Jul 26, 2005)

WOOHOO!!!!! Great news


----------



## Charlies-Mum (May 25, 2005)

Hurrah - Common sense prevails for once!!


----------



## ♥JJ1♥ (Feb 11, 2006)

Here's the verdict http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7410934.stm

/links


----------



## Lou-Ann (Apr 20, 2008)

Great News


----------



## dottiep (Nov 20, 2007)

Phew - a relief!


----------



## dottiep (Nov 20, 2007)

Just to say I got a reply from my MP yesterday!  Better late than never... he was fully supportive of us and voted for our cause.  He actually apologised that the House split along Party lines!


----------



## suitcase of dreams (Oct 7, 2007)

Extremely long reply received from my MP today (not too late or anything then!):

He voted against against us on the need for a father (guess that's what I expected from a Conservative MP in middle class Hampshire..) - but fortunately was defeated.

Laura
x

Thank you for your email about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. First, I should apologise for the length of my reply, but as you will be aware the Bill contains a number of controversial topics which merit a detailed explanation.

The Conservative Party has welcomed the Government's proposal to replace the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Act. Technology and public opinion have moved on considerably in the last 18 years and there was a common view that the Act had become outdated. Nevertheless, the changes proposed in the new Bill have prompted lengthy and passionate debate. However, despite challenges to the Government's proposals from all sides of the House the Bill has, on the whole, remained unchanged. Because of the sensitive issues raised, Conservative MPs were allowed to vote on this Bill according to their conscience.

In general, I am supportive of the research aims of the Bill. The licensing and regulatory regime in the UK has proven to be sufficiently robust and helped make the UK one of the world's leading centres for stem cell research. Advances such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) have been developed through research in this field and I believe that scientists in the UK should be allowed to continue all avenues of stem cell research in parallel. However, in my view, the Bill stretched a number of ethical and moral issues beyond that which many people were prepared to accept.

The creation of human admixed embryos was one of the most controversial areas of the Bill. Unfortunately, a Defence Committee engagement caused me to miss the start of voting on this issue. The Bill proposed the creation and use of a number of different types of admixed embryos. Had I been present, I would have voted to allow the creation of cytoplasmic hybrids - where an animal egg is used as an empty vessel for the creation of an embryo due to the recognised shortage of donated female eggs. However, the Bill went much further and sought to permit the creation of true hybrids - where 50:50 animal and human nuclear DNA is combined to form an embryo. A number of world's leading scientists in stem cell research were unsupportive of the Government's case for allowing true hybrids.

Saviour siblings are not a concept new to this Bill. To date, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority have licensed 6 families to receive this form of treatment; however, along with many Conservative colleagues I was concerned that the Bill was too weak in relation to the circumstances allowing their creation. I therefore supported the Conservative amendments which would have restricted their use to when the patient sibling suffers from a condition which is "life-threatening or severely impairs their quality of life". This amendment was defeated and saviour siblings will now be permitted to help patients with "serious" diseases.

The Bill had also sought to widen the extent to which saviour siblings could be used, by allowing the collection of "umbilical cord blood, bone marrow and any other tissue". Again, I supported Conservative amendments which would have limited the collection of tissue to that which was only regenerative in nature. Again, these amendments were defeated.

*A child's need for a father was another highly controversial element of this Bill, which had proposed to remove the requirement for fertility clinics to take into account the resulting child's need for a father. The new test was whether the child would receive "supportive parenting". I supported the unsuccessful Conservative amendments that would have required the need for a father or male role model.*

Parliament had not considered a reduction in the upper time limit for abortion since 1990 when, following clear scientific evidence, the legal limit was reduced from 28 to 24 weeks. Although not an element of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, a series of amendments tabled in the House of Commons sought to reduce the upper time limit.

In general, I agree with the widely held view that the 1967 Abortion Act is a practical and humane piece of legislation - although I do share the concern of many that the medical justification for the abortions is becoming less well enforced and that in some cases the availability of abortion is being treated as an acceptable alternative to contraception. I also recognise that there continue to be improvements in neonatal science which merit Parliament considering this issue once more.

I am, of course, respectful of the British Medical Association and Royal Colleges' position which has highlighted the fact that the only major neonatal development since 1990 is in the survival of babies born at 24 weeks and over. Nevertheless, I am concerned that recent scientific studies have revealed wide variations in survival rates for pre-term infants of 22 and 23 weeks. I therefore supported a reduction in the time limit to 22 weeks.

I do hope that you have found this reply helpful.

Yours sincerely,
James Arbuthnot


----------

