Still no legislation, 20 years after the X case!

Mint Sauce

Did I just hear that right on TV3?

Now before we get into this, I dont beleive in abortion unless there is exceptional circumstances, ie the risk of life to the mother or unborn baby, but at the same time I'm not going to ridicule the woman who wants an abortion simple beceause she cant afford a kid. Suppose that puts me in the Pro-Choice catorgory.

But after listening to TV3, does this goverment mean to tell me that if an unborn baby is not compatable with life, ie, it wont survive outside the womb, that the mother still has to carry that child to near term knowing that it will never live, or make a harrowing journey to the UK to have it aborted. Or if her own life was at risk, she has to travel to the UK, or stay here till the end of term, putting her own life at risk.

Now I know theres alot of shit going on in this country what with water charges and the household charge, etc etc, but this goverment is really atounding me on an almost daily bases, I honestly thought this was resolved years ago.

What with another debate on the issue in the Dail this week, I really hope there is a referendum on this, it will be one that I will hold more interest in than compared to fiscal measures. Surely in its current state its unconsitutional as its putting the mother at risk.

<Blood Boiling>

:mad::mad:

vicwatson

No referendum on child protection to amend the constiution either. Yet they are willing to push the fiscal compact treaty (or whatever you call it) down our necks AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. :mad::mad:

Witcher

Ah yes the daily government bashing thread I'm here early I see. Please, allow me to start us off;


Rabble! Rabble! Rabble!

:pac:

Mint Sauce

Blay wrote: »

Ah yes the daily government bashing thread I'm here early I see. Please, allow me to start us off;


Rabble! Rabble! Rabble!

:pac:

Will this one has been debated long before there current fuck ups, and by the sounds of things will continue to be long after.

micropig

Abortion is a highly emotive issue and causes unrest within the population. Unrest means loss of votes. As a nation, supported by the government, we like to turn a blind eye and side step issues like this. We have an image of a good, honest, catholic country to uphold on the world stage. The suffering this causes to real people, our own people, is insignificant.

Mint Sauce

micropig wrote: »

Abortion is a highly emotive issue and causes unrest within the population. Unrest means loss of votes. As a nation, supported by the government, we like to turn a blind eye and side step issues like this. We have an image of a good, honest, catholic country to uphold on the world stage. The suffering this causes to real people, our own people, is insignificant.

So much for seperation of the Church and State. If it did result in a yes vote, knowing the history of our goverment they would probably go for a re vote.

Surely if there was another referendum, they could at least consider including the use of exceptional circumstances only.

AboutTwoFiddy

They ruined it when Mulder and Scully got together.

Nodin

irish-stew wrote: »

Did I just hear that right on TV3?

Aye.

irish-stew wrote: »

But after listening to TV3, does this goverment mean to tell me that if an unborn baby is not compatable with life, ie, it wont survive outside the womb, that the mother still has to carry that child to near term knowing that it will never live, or make a harrowing journey to the UK to have it aborted. Or if her own life was at risk, she has to travel to the UK, or stay here till the end of term, putting her own life at risk.

Yep.

irish-stew wrote: »

Now I know theres alot of shit going on in this country what with water charges and the household charge, etc etc, but this goverment is really atounding me on an almost daily bases, I honestly thought this was resolved years ago.

Nope. Ended up in the European court.
http://www.ifpa.ie/eng/Media-Info/News-Events/News-Events/IFPA-Welcomes-Landmark-Decision-for-Women
That was two years ago.

irish-stew wrote: »

What with another debate on the issue in the Dail this week, I really hope there is a referendum on this, it will be one that I will hold more interest in than compared to fiscal measures. Surely in its current state its unconsitutional as its putting the mother at risk.

It is, according to the supreme court, back in 1992.

Mint Sauce

So 20 years on, and 18 months after a so called landmark decision we are still no further.

The Irish Family Planning Association (FPA) said that today is a landmark day for women in Ireland. It welcomed the unanimous decision by the European Court of Human Rights that abortion, in certain circumstances, should be legalised in Ireland.

http://www.ifpa.ie/eng/Media-Info/News-Events/News-Events/IFPA-Welcomes-Landmark-Decision-for-Women

So if Europe has said it should be legalised why the hell is this Goverment still dragging its heals over the issue?

Son Of A Vidic

Blay wrote: »

Ah yes the daily government bashing thread I'm here early I see. Please, allow me to start us off;


Rabble! Rabble! Rabble!

:pac:

Oh just give it a rest and untwist your knickers ffs. Threads are easily avoided if you don't like them.

micropig

irish-stew wrote: »

So much for seperation of the Church and State. If it did result in a yes vote, knowing the history of our goverment they would probably go for a re vote.

Surely if there was another referendum, they could at least consider including the use of exceptional circumstances only.

I think it's too complicated for them to decide what is an exceptional circumstance and yes, they probably would go for a re-vote as our health service can not cope with it's current workload

Professey Chin

The majority of politicians are cowards by nature.
Everythings about image and votes and avoiding risk for their own careers sake.
I fear this will drag out for another 20 years since I dont see any kind of reform coming

super_furry

"We have to introduce water meters and household charges because it's a European directive."

Conviently ignoring a European directive that's now 20-years old.

Nodin

micropig wrote: »

I think it's too complicated for them to decide what is an exceptional circumstance .......

They've had 21 fucking years. Its been laid out for them what constitutes those exceptional circumstances. The truth is none of them have had the bollocks.

Zillah

AboutTwoFiddy wrote: »

They ruined it when Mulder and Scully got together.

The X-Cases sounds like a cheap knock-off that some backwards network had made because they couldn't afford the real The X-Files.

Biggins

irish-stew wrote: »

Still no legislation, 20 years after the X case!

16 years after a report too on fathers rights and the need for much change? Still nothing resolved.

Welcome to the old Irish way of political speed and stupidity!
...Now if they want money from us... Aaa... well, they can bring in a law in a flash and adjust others with the same speed!

micropig

Nodin wrote: »

They've had 21 fucking years. Its been laid out for them what constitutes those exceptional circumstances. The truth is none of them have had the bollocks.

Absolutely Nodin, Couldn't agree with you more, I can see it taking another 21 unfortunately

Mint Sauce

Biggins wrote: »

16 years after a report too on fathers rights and the need for much change? Still nothing resolved.

Welcome to the old Irish way of political speed and stupidity!
...Now if they want money from us... Aaa... well, they can bring in a law in a flash and adjust others with the same speed!

And keep keep keep trying till they get want they want.

But anything else they just seem to brush it under the carpet.

micropig

Biggins wrote: »

16 years after a report too on fathers rights and the need for much change? Still nothing resolved.

Welcome to the old Irish way of political speed and stupidity!
...Now if they want money from us... Aaa... well, they can bring in a law in a flash and adjust others with the same speed!

All the overnight legislation passed on various issues & yet the bigger ones ignored:mad:


*Awaits for a bigwig to invest in an abortion clinic and bad legislation to be introduced overnight to facilitate them

Biggins

irish-stew wrote: »

And keep keep keep trying till they get want they want.

But anything else they just seem to brush it under the carpet.

micropig wrote: »

All the overnight legislation passed on various issues & yet the bigger ones ignored:mad:

Yep.

Unless it seems there is personal political gain/profit of some kind, many TD's won't do the right thing and address some/many issues. They would rather defer such things for the next opposition government.
"Lets draw up yet another committee to look into these matters and make another report..."

There is a lot of spineless, self-ingratiating pieces of garbage in the Dail!

Mint Sauce

Biggins wrote: »

Yep.

Unless it seems there is personal political gain/profit of some kind, many TD's won't do the right thing and address some/many issues. They would rather defer such things for the next opposition government.
"Lets draw up yet another committee to look into these matters and make another report..."

There is a lot of spineless, self-ingratiating pieces of garbage in the Dail!

Unfortunatly Biggins, from my time living here, and hearing some of the history it seems to be part of the culture of the goverment to be in it for them selfs. The majority dont seem to give a shit about every day issues, and only want to screw us for their own ineptness.

Gawd knows how much more will be wasted investigating maters that we already know the answer to, and introductions of further measures to screw us, whilst maters such as this are dragged on and on.

Looking back 10 years ago when I took part in one of my first referendums in this country, was also a abortion one, I foolishly thought I was taking part in my civic and constitiutonal right for an issue affecting god knows how many woman and thiers partners each year, 2012 and we are still hardly any further on that. Now they just want me to use those rights to dig them selfs out of their own hole.

Biggins

irish-stew wrote: »

Unfortunatly Biggins, from my time living here, and hearing some of the history it seems to be part of the culture of the goverment to be in it for them selfs. The majority dont seem to give a shit about every day issues, and only want to screw us for their own ineptness.

Gawd knows how much more will be wasted investigating maters that we already know the answer to, and introductions of further measures to screw us, whilst maters such as this are dragged on and on.

Looking back 10 years ago when I took part in one of my first referendums in this country, was also a abortion one, I foolishly thought I was taking part in my civic and constitiutonal right for an issue affecting god knows how many woman and thiers partners each year, 2012 and we are still hardly any further on that. Now they just want me to use those rights to dig them selfs out of their own hole.

100% agree.

Paz-CCFC

irish-stew wrote: »

Or if her own life was at risk, she has to travel to the UK, or stay here till the end of term, putting her own life at risk.

Not true. Article 40.3.3 of the Bunreacht means that, if the mother's life is at risk, she can legally have an abortion in Ireland. However, it doesn't extend to serious health risks - say, blindness being caused by carrying out the full term.

irish-stew wrote: »

So much for seperation of the Church and State. If it did result in a yes vote, knowing the history of our goverment they would probably go for a re vote.

Surely if there was another referendum, they could at least consider including the use of exceptional circumstances only.

I doubt they would. I'd say that they'd be delighted if a referendum were passed - whether an amendment increased or restricted the scope of legal abortions in Ireland. The people would have made the choice for them that they should've made, which would mean they could enact legislation without having much impact on their votes, becauses they can just say "Well, the people wanted this, so we gave it to them".

At the moment, because it's so split (the last referedum on the matter was defeated 50.6% to 49.8%), the Dáil don't have the balls to do their job and create legislation to clarify the law on this area - something the judiciary have been calling for time and time again since the X case. They're not side-stepping the problem for the benefit of the Catholic Church - they're doing it for the benefit of themselves, much to the detriment of the people.

Feisar

Biggins wrote: »

Yep.

Unless it seems there is personal political gain/profit of some kind, many TD's won't do the right thing and address some/many issues. They would rather defer such things for the next opposition government.
"Lets draw up yet another committee to look into these matters and make another report..."

There is a lot of spineless, self-ingratiating pieces of garbage in the Dail!

I fail to see the problem???

Sure anyone with a bit of sense would do their utmost to keep themselves in a job, especially one as lucrative as a government seat.

It's the rare few that think of the common good before all else.

28064212

The comparisons of the abortion issue to any other is wrong. There is nothing like the current status of abortion. 20 years ago, the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion in certain circumstances. That the law has not been implemented to grant that right is a disgrace. Twice the government have asked the people in referendums to remove that right. Both times they've said no. In any first-world country, that kind of situation is ridiculous

For comparison, the most recent amendment, the 29th (allowing for reducing judges' pay) was passed on October 27th 2011. The legislation implementing those changes was passed on the 7th of December, 41 days later.

senordingdong

Give it three years and when these cowardly ***** are out of office they will be shouting across the chambers at whoever is in power.

lazygal

It took the Government 41 days to implement the referendum on judges' pay.


The Irish people have voted to give women in Ireland the right to abortion in limited circumstances. Every Irish Government since 1992 has failed to legislate for this decision. I have asked all canvassers during elections/referendum campaigns when they will legislate to give effect to the X Case decision. Not one of them gave me a straight answer, but I did enjoy the rabbit in the headlight look from them.

drkpower

While I dont want to interrupt the government-bashing fest (and agree with it to a certain extent) there is one major reason why they are reluctant to act, and one to which I havent yet heard an entirely satisfactory response:

How to practically put into effect the suicide ground, without ending up with de facto on demand abortion (which it seems fairly clear the majority of the populace are against).

28064212

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Not true. Article 40.3.3 of the Bunreacht means that, if the mother's life is at risk, she can legally have an abortion in Ireland

Incorrect. Article 40.3.3 means the mother has the right to an abortion. Legally, anyone procuring an abortion would be guilty under the Offences Against the Person Act (1861), as would the doctor providing it

PrincessLola

I don't understand much about abortion law here, but there was something in the Irish Times yestersay about women who were forced to travel for an abortion despite having fatal foetal defects. And they did the same to a woman with cancer who was pregnant.
Seriously, wtf?

Mint Sauce

28064212 wrote: »

Incorrect. Article 40.3.3 means the mother has the right to an abortion. Legally, anyone procuring an abortion would be guilty under the Offences Against the Person Act (1861), as would the doctor providing it

Just not here though.

Paz-CCFC

28064212 wrote: »

Incorrect. Article 40.3.3 means the mother has the right to an abortion. Legally, anyone procuring an abortion would be guilty under the Offences Against the Person Act (1861), as would the doctor providing it

I was under the impression that a number of women have gotten abortions in this country since the X Case/1992 referendum.

Would the woman's constitutional right, and the State's duty to uphold that right, not trump the section of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 in cases where the mother's life is at risk?

drkpower

28064212 wrote: »

Incorrect. Article 40.3.3 means the mother has the right to an abortion. Legally, anyone procuring an abortion would be guilty under the Offences Against the Person Act (1861), as would the doctor providing it

Not sure if that is correct. If a woman has a constitution right to an abortion (in this limited instance) it must be capable of being exercised. Any legislative provision that prevents that right from being exercised would in itself be unconstitutional.

But in any case, it is an aside.

28064212

drkpower wrote: »

While I dont want to interrupt the government-bashing fest (and agree with it to a certain extent) there is one major reason why they are reluctant to add, and one to which I havent yet heard an entirely satisfactory response:

How to practically put into effect the suicide ground, without ending up with de facto on demand abortion (which it seems fairly clear the majority of the populace are against).

It doesn't seem particularly clear at all, given that the majority have voted for it. Twice. It is not up to the government to decide what parts of the constitution they get to implement

lazygal

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

I was under the impression that a number of women have gotten abortions in this country since the X Case/1992 referendum.

Would the woman's constitutional right, and the State's duty to uphold that right, not trump the section of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 in cases where the mother's life is at risk?

Doctors won't perform them as they've no guarantee they won't be prosecuted. I'm currently pregnant with my first child and I had my anomaly scan, where they check brain function etc, at 20 weeks. I know my doctor has had women in her clinic who've been told they have a baby that won't live and all she can do is refer them to the services here like the IFPA. Some doctors won't even suggest a termination, even if there is no sign of life. It's a quagmire for women and doctors.

Mint Sauce

drkpower wrote: »

Not sure if that is correct. If a woman has a constitution right to an abortion (in this limited instance) it must be capable of being exercised. Any legislative provision that prevents that right from being exercised would in itself be unconstitutional.

But in any case, it is an aside.

She has the constitutional right to one. Just not in this country, she wont be punished for going abroad for one, where as before the X case she might have been.

drkpower

28064212 wrote: »

It doesn't seem particularly clear at all, given that the majority have voted for it. Twice. It is not up to the government to decide what parts of the constitution they get to implement

I agree; Im simply outlining one of the the rationales for why they havent acted. It would be incredibly difficult to frame legislation on the suicide ground which would not end up with de facto abortion on demand. If the latter actually occurred, the populace would be up in arms at the result.

riclad

ITS A Catch 22 ,its legal for a woman to get an abortion, in certain circumstances, as far as i know theres no doctor that,ll will provide it as its not clear if he would be legally allowed to do so.SO anyone that wants one goes to the uk anyway.
The present government is probably too busy with the economic crisis, or it seems like womens right s are always a low priority and most tds are men.
WE need a new law, 20 per cent of tds must be women, then there d be better emphasis on women,s rights.

Mint Sauce

PrincessLola wrote: »

I don't understand much about abortion law here, but there was something in the Irish Times yestersay about women who were forced to travel for an abortion despite having fatal foetal defects. And they did the same to a woman with cancer who was pregnant.
Seriously, wtf?

This is preaty much the same story on TV3 that prompted me to start this.

Basically despite the people asking for this, Europe saying it should be allowed, the goverment still wont implement, that in exceptional circumstances a women can get an abortion here.

The law was only changed to allow them to get information here, and to travel. At one point even both of them were illegal.

lazygal

drkpower wrote: »

I agree; Im simply outlining one of the the rationales for why they havent acted. It would be incredibly difficult to frame legislation on the suicide ground which would not end up with de facto abortion on demand. If the latter actually occurred, the populace would be up in arms at the result.

With respect, I don't think suicide as a reason would lead to an abortion on demand situation. If a woman wants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, why is one reason she wants to do so more legitimate than another reason? I mean, what are we going to do if a woman does not want a child but can't procure an abortion? Are the pro life groups going to raise it for her? Are Youth Defence going to step in and provide support until the child is of age? Most pro lifers are pro life until the baby is born, and then they think their work is done. It's an incredibly difficult thing to carry a child to term when you WANT a baby. I wouldn't go through four months of morning sickness, back pain, hormonal imbalance, physical and mental exhaustion, not to mind the pain of labour, unless I was damn sure I wanted a child.

Until you are faced with a crisis pregnancy you just do not know what decision process you have to go through. The 'adoption is an option' line is trotted out as some sort of panacea for unwanted children. Married people can't give a child up for adoption in Ireland, so what to they do? What about a woman having to deal with post natal depression? It doesn't go away just because the child is with a family. No 'reason' is less legitimate than another, what difference should it make to anyone else why a woman wants an abortion?

28064212

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

I was under the impression that a number of women have gotten abortions in this country since the X Case/1992 referendum.

I'm not aware of any, certainly none that have been publically acknowledged.

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Would the woman's constitutional right, and the State's duty to uphold that right, not trump the section of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 in cases where the mother's life is at risk?

The only way to challenge it is for a woman to have an abortion, and risk going through a lengthy court battle. Any woman with those kind of resources would just go to England

Not to mention that any doctor providing it would also run the risk of criminal proceedings

drkpower wrote: »

Not sure if that is correct. If a woman has a constitution right to an abortion (in this limited instance) it must be capable of being exercised. Any legislative provision that prevents that right from being exercised would in itself be unconstitutional.

Yes, the law is unconstitutional (IMO). However, it is still in effect until such time as it is struck down as unconstitutional

irish-stew wrote: »

She has the constitutional right to one. Just not in this country, she wont be punished for going abroad for one, where as before the X case she might have been.

Incorrect. She has the constitutional right to an abortion in this country. However, procuring one would be illegal. That's what makes the situation so ridiculous

drkpower wrote: »

I agree; Im simply outlining one of the the rationales for why they havent acted. It would be incredibly difficult to frame legislation on the suicide ground which would not end up with de facto abortion on demand. If the latter actually occurred, the populace would be up in arms at the result.

Then they can call another referendum. After implementing what they were constitutionally required to do twenty years ago

Paz-CCFC

lazygal wrote: »

Doctors won't perform them as they've no guarantee they won't be prosecuted. I'm currently pregnant with my first child and I had my anomaly scan, where they check brain function etc, at 20 weeks. I know my doctor has had women in her clinic who've been told they have a baby that won't live and all she can do is refer them to the services here like the IFPA. Some doctors won't even suggest a termination, even if there is no sign of life. It's a quagmire for women and doctors.

Was the mother's life at risk in this particular case? Because if it wasn't, it doesn't fall under the scope of Article 40.3.3. At least not as far as the judiciary are willing to extend it (for fear of acting as a self-appointed legislature), with the lack of legislation at the matter.

irish-stew wrote: »

She has the constitutional right to one. Just not in this country, she wont be punished for going abroad for one, where as before the X case she might have been.

The Chief Justice at the time said "is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible". That, to me, suggests that abortions are legal IN Ireland, under these circumstances.

28064212 wrote: »

I'm not aware of any, certainly none that have been publically acknowledged.

Admittedly, I don't have an actual news item on this. It was something told to me by a constitutional law lecture.

The only way to challenge it is for a woman to have an abortion, and risk going through a lengthy court battle. Any woman with those kind of resources would just go to England

Not to mention that any doctor providing it would also run the risk of criminal proceedings

Yes, the law is unconstitutional (IMO). However, it is still in effect until such time as it is struck down as unconstitutional


Incorrect. She has the constitutional right to an abortion in this country. However, procuring one would be illegal. That's what makes the situation so ridiculous

Do you think a case would be taken against a woman on the basis of a law that would likely, it seems, be declared unconstitutional?

Mint Sauce

28064212 wrote: »

Incorrect. She has the constitutional right to an abortion in this country. However, procuring one would be illegal. That's what makes the situation so ridiculous

Which brings us right back to the orriginal arguement, why are the goverment still dragging their heals on this.

Of course there will probably be a back lash, but the majority of people, no mater how small that was, accepted the change.

I havn't studied the constitution in great detail, or how something is signed into law after an agreement to change to it, but my limited understanding was, that if the goverment puts a propasal to the people, the constitution is then either left as it is or changed depending on the result, and then the law is changed to refelct that.

Its not only ridiculous, but it stinks.

Ilyana

The problem in Ireland is that our constitution, unusually, guarantees the right to life of the unborn as well as the right to life of the mother. The courts, the DPP etc. are constitutionally bound to vindicate that right. Of course, there is no set definition of 'unborn', which in itself is a controversial issue.

The right to life of the unborn must be balanced with the right to life (not health) of the mother. I think that some judges are unwilling to let themselves be accused of compromising the life of a (potential) child.

Therein lies the problem with abortion in Ireland, and I can't see any referendum leading to the right to life of the unborn being deleted from the constitution.

28064212

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Admittedly, I don't have an actual news item on this. It was something told to me by a constitutional law lecture.

It seems unlikely

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Do you think a case would be taken against a woman on the basis of a law that would likely, it seems, be declared unconstitutional?

She will have broken a law. There will be huge pressure on the DPP to take a case by conservative groups (have you seen the kind of fervour that the likes of Youth Defence have?). And worse, they'll be right. The DPP doesn't get to decide that a law is unconstitutional, only the courts can decide that. A court case is required to get the law struck down, unless the government steps up and does their duty. What woman (and doctor) do you think is going to take that kind of risk? Who's going to bring the ****storm of publicity on themselves, during what is already a very tough time?

EmilyO wrote: »

The problem in Ireland is that our constitution, unusually, guarantees the right to life of the unborn as well as the right to life of the mother. The courts, the DPP etc. are constitutionally bound to vindicate that right. Of course, there is no set definition of 'unborn', which in itself is a controversial issue.

The right to life of the unborn must be balanced with the right to life (not health) of the mother. I think that some judges are unwilling to let themselves be accused of compromising the life of a (potential) child.

Therein lies the problem with abortion in Ireland, and I can't see any referendum leading to the right to life of the unborn being deleted from the constitution.

Except the Supreme Court has already ruled. If there is a real and substantial risk to her life (including the risk of suicide), a woman is constitutionally entitled to an abortion

vicwatson

The motion was defeated heavily 111 to 20

Politics in this country go in one direction - backwards.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0419/breaking14.html

And it's not just the current Government, successive governments have failed to enact the leglisation, Fine Gael, Labour and Fianna Fail - all hang your heads in shame.

EDIT - oh and The Pds (remember them) and the Greens (remember them too), jesus we really have and have had crap people running the country

Mint Sauce

vicwatson wrote: »

The motion was defeated heavily 111 to 20

Politics in this country go in one direction - backwards.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0419/breaking14.html

And it's not just the current Government, successive governments have failed to enact the leglisation, Fine Gael, Labour and Fianna Fail - all hang your heads in shame.

EDIT - oh and The Pds (remember them) and the Greens (remember them too), jesus we really have and have had crap people running the country

Was just about to comment on that motion. Lets hope they might have a little more balls after the expert review is completed.

:mad: