Showing posts with label Need for a Father. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Need for a Father. Show all posts

1 Jun 2008

California Supreme Court hears lesbian fertility case


Following the recent debates on the removal of the clause of the need for a father in the UK, this case which I have blogged about earlier is interesting. On 28th May 2008 the California Supreme Court started hearing the case of a Lesbian who claims she denied fertility treatment by Christian Fundamentalist Doctors on the rounds of her sexual orientation. She is represented by Lambda Legal. The court has 90 days to issue an opinion about the case.


On their website Lambda Legal states it is the oldest national organization pursuing high-impact litigation, public education and advocacy on behalf of equality and civil rights for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and people with HIV in the US. Lambda Legal also give details of other cases that are currently open which include the refusal to allow a joint mortgage to a lesbian couple, the refusal of fertility treatment to gay men, homophobic bullying in schools, cutomer prejudices not grounds to terminate a transgender employee's employment and the right for same-sex couples to marry.


For other coverage of the fertility case see: Yahoo News Report. Ventura County Star News. KCBS News. Fox news.


20 May 2008

Lesbians from Lancashire

On the need for a Father Geraldine Smith, Labour MP for Morecombe and Lunesdale: It might surprise my hon. Friend to know that I do talk to many lesbians, and quite a few of them have a great deal of common sense and would not find any problem with this. So it depends who we talk to; maybe lesbians in Lancashire are a bit more down to earth than lesbians in London. I spoke on this subject on Second Reading, so I do not want to speak on it now for too long, but let me make the following appeal to all Members: this is about common sense and what is in the best interests of the child, and it is also about saying that fathers have a role to play. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) talked about instructing women on bringing children into the world, but may I finally say that women need a man if they are to bring a child into the world? That is a fact of life at the moment; science has not changed that yet, so there is nothing we can do about it. Therefore, fathers are pretty important.


Well I am a Lesbian from Lancashire and all I will say is that we are kept well down to earth by patronising crap like this.

Male Role Models and the Need for a Father

I note that David Blunkett voted for clinics to consider the need for a Father and /or male role model.

During his time as Home Secretary, Blunkett admitted to having a relationship with Kimberly Fortier, an American publisher. The three-year relationship ended acrimoniously in August 2004 with Fortier choosing to return to her husband, Stephen Quinn. Fortier has since reverted to her married name.

Blair regarded it proper for Blunkett to remain Home Secretary while pursuing his pregnant former lover in the courts to ascertain paternity of her unborn child as it appeared of no relevance to his ministerial position. However, at the end of November 2004, it was alleged that Blunkett abused his position to assist his ex-lover's Filipino nanny, Leoncia "Luz" Casalme, by speeding up her residence visa application. Though there was no evidence Blunkett was responsible for the email or its title, he resigned as Home Secretary saying that questions about his honesty were damaging the government.

In late October 2005, David Blunkett began to feel the pressure of the media for a second time. Two weeks before the 2005 Genral Election he took up a directorship in a company called DNA Bioscience and bought £15 000 of shares in the company. Blunkett was asked to explain why he had not consulted the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments regarding the directorship. Having placed the shares into an independent trust, "Mr Blunkett said he had asked his three grown-up sons from his first marriage to authorise trustees to "dispose of" the shares. They agreed to the request." Blunkett's political opponents claimed that a conflict of interest was created by him having been director of and holding shares in a company proposing to bid for government contracts to provide paternity tests to the Child Support Agency – part of the DWP, of which he was Secretary of State.
An investigation – asked for by Prime Minister Tony Blair – found that although Blunkett had not broken the Ministerial Code by becoming a director of the company or buying its shares, he should have consulted the Advisory Committee before doing so.

His personal life has been colourful, Blunkett divorced his wife, by whom he had three sons, in 1990. In 2004, with news of his affair, Blunkett asserted that he was the father of Quinn's two-year-old son, William and also perhaps of her then-unborn child. Quinn denied this, claiming that both children were her husband's. In late 2004, Blunkett began a legal challenge to gain access to William. In late December 2004, as was widely reported in the media, DNA tests confirmed that Quinn's two-year-old son, William, was Blunkett's child. In March 2005 it was confirmed that Blunkett was not the father of Quinn's newborn son, Lorcan. In 2005 there was more speculation about Blunkett's private life, this time regarding a young woman and for not disclosing free membership to an exclusive London nightclub. The matter with the young women has been cleared up following a full apology from the newspaper which printed the original story and his membership at the nightclub has been forfeited.

See David Blunkett Paternity Case

Fathers Not Needed!

I am a bit late blogging about this but Craig has been keeping us up to date. As a lesbian mother, you see I have just got in from work as due to the gender pay gap, I have to work extra hours to make sure that I provide adequately for my child - now is that what they meant about the need for a Father. Actually my son is now grown up, well adjusted and has had a richness of role models black, white, male, female, disabled, non-disabled, of all cultures, nationalities, faiths and religions. And I am a Lesbian from Lancashire!

Anyway, the vote was close - the need for a father and a mother was defeated by 292 votes to 217. MPs also opposed a further bid to ensure there is a "father or a male role model" before fertility treatment, by 290 votes to 222. See BBC News for more details.

The abortion debate is currently ongoing.

19 May 2008

Compromise over Need for Fathers Reported

The Times has reported today that Gordon Brown is willing to save hybrid embryos at the cost of retaining the need for a father to be considered when offering assisted reproduction services.

Insiders say there is no substance in the claims but e-mail or telephone your MPs today asking them not to support the amendments to the bill which would result in the retention of the clause for need to consider a Father or the addition of a male role model. The introduction of 'supportive parenting' is adequate and reflective of the modern society that we live in and should apply to all families.

Write to your MP

On Tuesday 20th May, the amendments to retain the need for a father when offering assisted reproduction services to lesbians and single women will go to the vote in the House of Commons. As will the moves to restrict abortion rights. MPs have been given a free vote.

Write to your MP now to oppose all the amendments. http://www.writetothem.com/

You can base a model letter asking your MP not to support amendments calling for consideration to be given to the need for a father or male role model from information contained on Stonewalls website and earlier enties on this blog.

A model letter and parliamentary briefing on the amendments to abortion can be found at Abortion Rights.

Watch Evan Harris and the Bishop of Liverpool discussing the issue of free votes.

13 May 2008

HFEB Need for a Father Clause Amendments Published

Mark Simmonds (Tory - Boston and Skegness) and Andrew Lansley (Tory - South Cambridgeshire) have introduced and amendment to the 'need to consider supportive parenting' which would add 'and a father or male role model'. Note it does not state positive male role model!

Iain Duncan Smith (Tory - Chingford and Woodford Green), David Taylor (Labour - North West Leicestershire), Claire Curtis-Thomas (Labour - Crosby), John Gummer (Tory - Suffolk Coastal), Michael Ancram (Tory - Devizes), Geraldine Smith (Labour - Morecombe and Lunesdale), Gerald Howarth (Tory - Aldershot) have submitted an amendment to retain the Father clause, add Mother and delete supportive parenting. Thereby, justifying discrimination against lesbians and single women and obviously the need for a Father and Mother is consider to be better for the welfare of a child than having supportive parents!

It should be noted that Claire Curtis-Thomas has absented herself from the majority of votes on gay equality in the past. Geraldine Smith votes against equal age of consent and against the Equality Act (sexual orientation) regualations. She was abent from most over votes on gay equality including the repeal of section 28 and adoption.

Write to your MP NOW asking them NOT to support these amendments at www.writetothem.com