FF opportunism on abortion

oppenheimer1

Nodin wrote: »

As has been pointed out, Doctors can and do rule on whether or not somebody is suicidal.

Yes they do. But all you have to say to a doctor is "I'm going to kill myself" to be deemed suicidal. Would any doctor take the risk of denying an abortion to a person who said that, even if they didn't believe them? The doctors would be leaving themselves open to litigation and malpractice claims if they denied the abortion on the grounds of not believing the patient that then went and killed themselves or even just attempted it.

The Government can't ignore the Irish Supreme Court, which has ruled that it must legislate for abortion in limited circumstances. The tactic used for 20 years was to put the matter on the long finger. That's now run its course.

I'm afraid you'll find that ignoring the problem has not run its course. The ECHR can be ignored (though this is not the norm) as there will be no sanction. The worst thing that will come of it is a strongly worded letter saying that the country is not in compliance There is no real imperative for change at the moment and with the Troika requiring unity from the Government parties, neither will want or have the stomach for a highly divisive referendum campaign with the potential to topple the government. I'm not saying that it is right that action should be delayed - but we will have to wait for a sunnier economic climate until the issue can be addressed I would think.

Nodin

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The decision was effectively legislating because the courts told the government and the people how to interpret the abortion amendment and that interpretation would require a change to law to incorporate their interpretation. The original amendment was poorly written, however the SC should have not defined what is a threat to the mother. The decision was always going to be divisive so the SC should have said that the definition of a "threat to the life of the mother" should be made by the people. I understand what the role of the SC is thanks, but I think they should show greater care with their judgements since their judgements become part of the constitution when given. There are plenty of vague bits in the constitution that the judges can interpret whatever way they like - essentially they can rewrite bits of it and use it in ways that were never intended.


............

The constitution and laws are what the Supreme court interpret them to be. It's the same in the states. Thats what its there for - its the ultimate and deciding authority. As the British don't have a written constitution theres not much point in comparing the two.

28064212

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

This is incorrect. The people voted on a change to the constitution, not on leaving it as is. Just because the amendment was rejected does not imply implicit approval of the current situation.

If the vote is on a change, and it loses, then, yes that is implicit approval of the current situation over the alternative. If the divorce referendum had lost, would you say that wasn't implicit approval of the ban on divorce?

And regardless of whether it is implicit approval or not, it doesn't actually change anything. We have a law that is unconstitutional. The only options are to legislate, or a referendum to change the article. The latter has failed (twice)

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The decision was effectively legislating because the courts told the government and the people how to interpret the abortion amendment and that interpretation would require a change to law to incorporate their interpretation.

Why do you claim you understand the role of the Supreme Court when you directly contradict it here? The Supreme Court is the final arbiter in interpreting the Constitution of Ireland. That is their role.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The original amendment was poorly written, however the SC should have not defined what is a threat to the mother. The decision was always going to be divisive so the SC should have said that the definition of a "threat to the life of the mother" should be made by the people. I understand what the role of the SC is thanks, but I think they should show greater care with their judgements since their judgements become part of the constitution when given. There are plenty of vague bits in the constitution that the judges can interpret whatever way they like - essentially they can rewrite bits of it and use it in ways that were never intended.

Your judgement would have been "I don't know what this article means, send it back for a referendum"? That's not an option. If a case comes before them, the SC has to decide what the constitution means in its current state.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The reason I bring this up is that it was a case with similarities to the X case, but came down on the other side. Although the UK doesn't have a written constitution per-se, it does operate on the principle that a judgement sets precedent. Had the Judge in the assisted suicide case a few weeks ago come doen in favour of Tony Nicholson, it would have forced the UK government to legislate for assisted suicide. In part of the judges ruling he stated that it would be wrong for him to to rule in favour of Tony Nicholson because that would mean that he, an unelected officer was effectively making law, not just interpreting it. He said that only Parliament should write laws and I wholeheartedly agree. The parallels with the X-case should be clear.

So no, the case has nothing to do with a constitutional republic

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Yes they do. But all you have to say to a doctor is "I'm going to kill myself" to be deemed suicidal. Would any doctor take the risk of denying an abortion to a person who said that, even if they didn't believe them? The doctors would be leaving themselves open to litigation and malpractice claims if they denied the abortion on the grounds of not believing the patient that then went and killed themselves or even just attempted it.

So if I go to a doctor and say "I'm suicidal", despite having absolutely no symptoms of depression, or any indicators of suicide, I'm going to be committed to a mental health facility?

seamus

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The decision was effectively legislating because the courts told the government and the people how to interpret the abortion amendment and that interpretation would require a change to law to incorporate their interpretation.

Don't forget that ten years ago the people were given the opportunity to change the constitution, but decided to stick with it, indicating that they were in fact happy with the courts' interpretation of the article and the proposed requirement to legislate.

So the people support abortion in the event of the threat of suicide.

Laminations

28064212 wrote: »

If the vote is on a change, and it loses, then, yes that is implicit approval of the current situation over the alternative. If the divorce referendum had lost, would you say that wasn't implicit approval of the ban on divorce?

Not necessarily. Imagine the status quo was something people didn't agree with - say it restricted marriage to heterosexual couples. And then a referendum was held to outlaw marriage completely. Just because that fails does not mean people suddenly agree with heterosexual only marriage.

I can't comment on the abortion referenda because I don't know enough detail but Oppenheimer has a point that needs refuting.

Laminations

There is a problem deciding if people are happy with the status quo based on the rejection of a change. It all depends on what that change is and how it is worded.

'Are you happy with your pay?'
'No'
How about we change it to your pay plus a kick in the bollocks
'No thanks'
'So you ARE happy with your pay?'

28064212

Laminations wrote: »

Not necessarily. Imagine the status quo was something people didn't agree with - say it restricted marriage to heterosexual couples. And then a referendum was held to outlaw marriage completely. Just because that fails does not mean people suddenly agree with heterosexual only marriage.

I can't comment on the abortion referenda because I don't know enough detail but Oppenheimer has a point that needs refuting.

It might be true for the 2002 referendum, which was wide-ranging and definitely not a for or against situation, but in 1992:

• Supreme Court rules that current text gives a right to an abortion where there is a substantial risk to the life of the mother, including the risk of suicide
• Referendum proposes making the text read "a real and substantial risk to her life, not being a risk of self-destruction"
• Referendum fails

How anyone could possibly consider that anything other than the people's approval of the right to an abortion where the risk is suicide is beyond me.

And yet, as I said, it's actually not a point that needs refuting. Regardless of whether the people approve or not, there is a law that is unconstitutional. The government have the option of asking the people to remove the article, or legislating. The former failed. The latter is the only remaining path. The status quo is not an option

Laminations

There are behavioural economics texts that suggest the direction of a question affects the answers. And I know that the wording of recent European treaties were questioned.

It wouldve seemed more sensible to ask people to vote on 'change'

Referendum proposes making the text read "a real and substantial risk to her life, including the risk of suicide.

Then people would have to have voted for change. People are likely to reject something when it's complicated or they don't understand the ramifications.

Anyway, you are right that at this stage the government must legislate.

Actor

Laminations wrote: »

Anyway, you are right that at this stage the government must legislate.

The government should clarify. This is very different from stating that they must legislate.

Nodin

Actor wrote: »

The government should clarify. This is very different from stating that they must legislate.

According to the Supreme court, they must legislate.

Actor

Nodin wrote: »

According to the Supreme court, they must legislate.

Quote please...

28064212

Actor wrote: »

Quote please...

Do let me know which part is confusing you:

1. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution provides a right to an abortion in certain circumstances
2. There is a law against obtaining an abortion in those circumstances
3. A referendum to remove the article which provides the right failed

Where exactly do you think "clarifying" comes into play here? The situation is as clear as it can get, the Supreme Court have ruled.

Actor

28064212 wrote: »

Do let me know which part is confusing you:

1. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution provides a right to an abortion in certain circumstances
2. There is a law against obtaining an abortion in those circumstances
3. A referendum to remove the article which provides the right failed

Where exactly do you think "clarifying" comes into play here? The situation is as clear as it can get, the Supreme Court have ruled.

You seek to portray as a ruling that Ireland is legally obliged to legislate for a "right" to an abortion on the terms of the 1992 Irish Supreme Court decision in the X case. This interpretation is contradicted by the actual judgement.

28064212

Actor wrote: »

You seek to portray as a ruling that Ireland is legally obliged to legislate for a "right" to an abortion on the terms of the 1992 Irish Supreme Court decision in the X case. This interpretation is contradicted by the actual judgement.

I asked you which part was confusing you, not for a general statement that I was wrong without providing any information to the contrary. What is your interpretation of the current situation, in light of the X Case ruling?

Nodin

Actor wrote: »

You seek to portray as a ruling that Ireland is legally obliged to legislate for a "right" to an abortion on the terms of the 1992 Irish Supreme Court decision in the X case. This interpretation is contradicted by the actual judgement.

Another baseless assertion. The EHCR has stated that the Government must legislate according to its own Supreme court ruling.

Actor

Nodin wrote: »

Another baseless assertion. The EHCR has stated that the Government must legislate according to its own Supreme court ruling.

You mean the ECtHR.

As I said, you are seeking to portray it as a ruling from Strasbourg that Ireland was is now legally "obliged" to legislate for a right to abortion on the terms of the 1992 Irish Supreme Court decision in the X case. This interpretation is contradicted by the actual judgement.

In fact, the ECtHR decision rests on two key conclusions: the court held that current restrictions on abortion in Ireland constitute a fair balance of the rights and interests in what the court called the "wide margin of appreciation" enjoyed by member states on this issue. The court also found that the "uncertainty" arising from the lack of legislation or "effective and accessible procedures" for deciding what is legally permissible in individual cases violated the third applicant's right to private life. All other complaints were dismissed.

The judgement from the ECtHR is fairly straightforward: the court noted that it was up to each state to decide if it would legally protect unborn human life and, if so, to balance such protection fairly with the rights of others. Once that balance is struck, states must provide "implementing...and institutional procedures" to ensure that the legal implications ofor individuals can be readily established with reasonable certainty.

This is very different from the common pro-choice mantra that the state "must legislate" for abortion.

Also, I'm still waiting on that Supreme Court quote.

Nodin

Actor wrote: »

You mean the ECtHR.

As I said, you are seeking (..........)Court quote.

The ECHR has stated that the Government is obliged to legislate based on the 1992 ruling.

The 1992 ruling allows for abortion in limited circumstances. The ruling is on the supreme court website
http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/pagecurrent/9FA0AA8E8D261FC48025765C0042F6B3?opendocument&l=en
number 22.

Actor

Nodin wrote: »

The ECHR has stated that the Government is obliged to legislate based on the 1992 ruling.

The 1992 ruling allows for abortion in limited circumstances. The ruling is on the supreme court website
http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/pagecurrent/9FA0AA8E8D261FC48025765C0042F6B3?opendocument&l=en
number 22.

Pathetic response. Just because you keep repeating something you heard in the Irish Times ("obliged to legislate") doesn't make it true.

Also, I'd like to hear your interpretation on the Supreme Court ruling. To blindly state that abortion is allowed "in limited circumstances" just shows how shallow your analytical abilities actually are.

Nodin

Actor wrote: »

Pathetic response. Just because you keep repeating something you heard in the Irish Times ("obliged to legislate") doesn't make it true.

Also, I'd like to hear your interpretation on the Supreme Court ruling. To blindly state that abortion is allowed "in limited circumstances" just shows how shallow your analytical abilities actually are.

Abortion is available in limited circumstances - where the life of the mother is threatened. There was an additional referendum in 2002 to remove risk of suicide as a valid cause for legal abortion, but this was rejected. Doubtless you'll be able to explain why that referendum was held if the 1992 ruling didn't allow for it.

28064212

Actor wrote: »

Also, I'm still waiting on that Supreme Court quote.

.

28064212 wrote: »

Do let me know which part is confusing you:

1. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution provides a right to an abortion in certain circumstances
2. There is a law against obtaining an abortion in those circumstances
3. A referendum to remove the article which provides the right failed

Where exactly do you think "clarifying" comes into play here? The situation is as clear as it can get, the Supreme Court have ruled.

28064212 wrote: »

I asked you which part was confusing you, not for a general statement that I was wrong without providing any information to the contrary. What is your interpretation of the current situation, in light of the X Case ruling?

Actor

And still not a quote in sight...

You'd fail any university course by sticking in a link and expecting a link to do your reasoning for you.

28064212

Actor wrote: »

And still not a quote in sight...

You'd fail any university course by sticking in a link and expecting a link to do your reasoning for you.

Which part is confusing you?

28064212 wrote: »

Do let me know which part is confusing you:

1. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution provides a right to an abortion in certain circumstances
2. There is a law against obtaining an abortion in those circumstances
3. A referendum to remove the article which provides the right failed

Where exactly do you think "clarifying" comes into play here? The situation is as clear as it can get, the Supreme Court have ruled.

Godge

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ojgbqlausnid/


Now this is interesting.

Up to 80% of the electorate say they would support a change in the law to permit abortion in cases where the life of the woman is at risk, according to a survey in today's Sunday Times.

Where are the Youth Defence arguments in this.