Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is it a spoof? Is it real?

It's certainly plausible.

Quite apart from anything else, standard PR advice for single-issue campaigns suggests that people should develop an emotional rather than a rational message, and deliver it in disjunctive "you're with us, or you're agin us" terms.

This kind of simplistic moral clarity appeals to authoritarians.

Delirium

Bannasidhe wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/04/24/talk-anti-choice-like-a-boss/


Is it a spoof? Is it real?

It's so hard to tell....

Doesn't seem like a spoof seeing as the source PDF is downable from the National Right to Life website.

PopePalpatine

robindch wrote: »

This kind of simplistic moral clarity appeals to authoritarians.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Not really.

FYI

Sheila Hodgers

Just to be clear, that actually case pre-dates the 8th Amendment. While I'm not making the case myself, I'd suggest a pro-life support could argue that the 8th Amendment would actually offer enhanced cover for women, as it made it clear that medical treatment is lawful when a substantial risk to life exists.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Knasher wrote: »

Legislating for X is still workable in legal terms.

I think you are strictly right, but I'd suspect that any workable legal formula will be politically unworkable from some perspective. But I think publishing a Bill is a necessary step, just to demonstrate that a new referendum is needed.

Now, what precise wording for an amendment would actually get enough political agreement to be passed both by the Oireachtas and by referendum is anther day's work.

Loafing Oaf

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think you are strictly right, but I'd suspect that any workable legal formula will be politically unworkable from some perspective. But I think publishing a Bill is a necessary step, just to demonstrate that a new referendum is needed.

Now, what precise wording for an amendment would actually get enough political agreement to be passed both by the Oireachtas and by referendum is anther day's work.

I think the only abortion referendum from now on will be one to repeal the eighth amendment, on the basis that abortion will be legalised in circumstances x, y and z. IMO most people, bar the pro-life hardcore who cling to the shibboleth that 'abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life' have concluded that any effort to legislate for this complex area through a blunt instrument like a Constitution is foolhardy.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I think the only abortion referendum from now on will be one to repeal the eighth amendment, on the basis that abortion will be legalised in circumstances x, y and z. IMO most people, bar the pro-life hardcore who cling to the shibboleth that 'abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life' have concluded that any effort to legislate for this complex area through a blunt instrument like a Constitution is foolhardy.

You could be right, but I think the overall national mood is hard to judge. I think there's about three stances on the issue.

There's folk who want a setup that guarantees that pregnant women have access to whatever medical care is necessary. They wouldn't necessarily go beyond that principle, but might support a change that includes risks to health as well as life if it could be done without recreating the UK regime. There would be various shades of pro-life opinion within that group, from people who'd want no change to the present situation (i.e. folk who contend that legal clarity can be achieved by guidance, without legislation) to people who'd accept legislation within the scope of the Constitution - except they'd probably be bothered if legislation on suicide was loosely implemented - to people who might accept a very limited, technical, change to the Constitution.

There's folk who'd go beyond that to accepting some mix of limited additional grounds, such as mental health considerations or where a foetus has some abnormality, but who'd stop short of an actual pro-choice position.

And then there's folk who'd support a pro choice position.

If you break it into numbers, I don't see a reason to say that the last group is the largest. I'd say the outcome is more likely to be some kind of limited availability on bone fide medical grounds. Even for that, I think work would be necessary to build up the necessary political impetus for change.

Loafing Oaf

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You could be right, but I think the overall national mood is hard to judge. I think there's about three stances on the issue.

There's folk who want a setup that guarantees that pregnant women have access to whatever medical care is necessary. They wouldn't necessarily go beyond that principle, but might support a change that includes risks to health as well as life if it could be done without recreating the UK regime. There would be various shades of pro-life opinion within that group, from people who'd want no change to the present situation (i.e. folk who contend that legal clarity can be achieved by guidance, without legislation) to people who'd accept legislation within the scope of the Constitution - except they'd probably be bothered if legislation on suicide was loosely implemented - to people who might accept a very limited, technical, change to the Constitution.

There's folk who'd go beyond that to accepting some mix of limited additional grounds, such as mental health considerations or where a foetus has some abnormality, but who'd stop short of an actual pro-choice position.

And then there's folk who'd support a pro choice position.

If you break it into numbers, I don't see a reason to say that the last group is the largest. I'd say the outcome is more likely to be some kind of limited availability on bone fide medical grounds. Even for that, I think work would be necessary to build up the necessary political impetus for change.

A recent opinion poll showed majorities in the 75-80% range in favour of a right to abortion in cases of severe foetal abnormality and other 'hard cases'. If a referendum to delete the eighth amendment was moved on the understanding that abortion would then be legalised on those grounds, I reckon it would pass pretty easily, and with nowhere near the rancout of previous referenda on this subject. Even if there was seen to be a real prospect that this regime could evolve into 'abortion on demand' over time, IMO it wouldn't be the end of the world for most of those voting for the referendum...

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

A recent opinion poll showed majorities in the 75-80% range in favour of a right to abortion in cases of severe foetal abnormality and other 'hard cases'. If a referendum to delete the eighth amendment was moved on the understanding that abortion would then be legalised on those grounds, I reckon it would pass pretty easily, and with nowhere near the rancout of previous referenda on this subject. Even if there was seen to be a real prospect that this regime could evolve into 'abortion on demand' over time, IMO it wouldn't be the end of the world for most of those voting for the referendum...

Again, you could be right. I'm just mindful of another poll a while back (linked earlier http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83342697&postcount=6214) that suggested 85% are in favour of legislation that includes risk of suicide in its scope, and 63% are in favour of an amendment excluding risk of suicide from the scope. In other words, at least 48% of people didn't have a consistent position.

That said, without any particular basis, I would feel it to be feasible to build consensus around providing for the 'hard cases'. However, I'd be interested to see how discussion of the foetal abnormality issue went. There is a strong, well-funded and vocal disability sector here. I'd suggest it's potential influence on a public discussion is unpredictable.

But what I'd mostly feel is that these are debates that need to take place - and that we need to be absolutely forensic in our examination of the cases made by all sides, including those we might see as "our own".

StudentDad

As long as there is an escape route to the UK for abortion, the political and social cowardice and hypocrisy will continue in this State.

We can have labour camps paid for by the state and run on a for profit basis by the RC church. Sex abuse scandals and bugger all in the way of justice apart from hand wringing. Babies taken from their mothers and sold by the church to 'acceptable' parents. The list goes on and on.

Yet state and religious groups are still trying to limit the human rights of women.

SD

Morag

Draft General Scheme of the Protection of Maternal Life Bill 2013

Risk of loss of life from self-destruction

Provide that

1. A person shall not be guilty of an offense under….when a medical procedure referred to in… is carried out by a register medical practitioner

at an appropriate location at which mental health services are also provided and in relation to such mental health services at least one of the psychiatrists referred in this head is employed.

one obstetrician and two psychiatrists have jointly certified that in their reasonable opinion

there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the pregnant woman’s life from self-destruction and this risk can only be averted by medical procedure in the course of which or as a result of which unborn human life is destroyed.

one obstetrician and two psychiatrists have revived the opinion referred to… and certified that they are of the same opinion.

2 At least one of the psychiatrists refereed to in… shall be a perinatal psychiatrist.

1+2+1+2=6 what a liar Reily is.

Sarky

Pardon my French, but that's a complete f*cking shambles of a draft. Doesn't help that nobody seems to have been listening to the constitutional convention on the matter at all.

rainbow kirby

Excuse me while I release a stream of expletives. This is absolutely ridiculous. Labour need to show some spine and tell FG where to stick this absolute shambles.

oldrnwisr

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Just to be clear, that actually case pre-dates the 8th Amendment. While I'm not making the case myself, I'd suggest a pro-life support could argue that the 8th Amendment would actually offer enhanced cover for women, as it made it clear that medical treatment is lawful when a substantial risk to life exists.

Sorry, I see what you mean now. I was a little confused about what you were getting at here. A case could be made for Savita being the only exception in a post 8th amendment environment. I would say, however that we should exercise caution in making such a definitive declaration. The WHO stats show that from say 1990-2010, an average of 4 women a year die in pregnancy. Since the causes of these deaths are indeterminate, making any positive conclusion about them is unwise.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oldrnwisr wrote: »

A case could be made for Savita being the only exception in a post 8th amendment environment. I would say, however that we should exercise caution in making such a definitive declaration. The WHO stats show that from say 1990-2010, an average of 4 women a year die in pregnancy. Since the causes of these deaths are indeterminate, making any positive conclusion about them is unwise.

I'd say that it's hard to definitively point to any case as directly resulting from the 8th Amendment. But that's not to say that there aren't issues to be sorted. I think the article below is good at setting out the landscape in a balanced manner. I'm just quoting what I see as of particular interest, but I think the full article is the kind of analysis and discussion that we need.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=21984

<...>Some medical and legal experts, not to mention Praveen Halappanavar, would dispute ex-Holles Street Master Dr Peter Boylan's claim made during the recent coroner's inquest that the termination that could have saved Savita's life was not legally permissible early on in her hospitalisation.

In the Savita case, the issue is complicated by the question of whether or not reported delays in checks and tests on her condition in the earlier days of her hospitalisation may have served to mask how seriously ill she was and would subsequently become.

Whatever reading you take from the evidence provided at the inquest, it cannot be denied that the current legal confusion inhibits doctors, and potentially, in rare cases, can kill patients.

<...>a reading of the detail of the 1992 X Case judgement indicates that the mother does not necessarily have to be literally 'at death's door' for a termination to be justified.

The recent Government Expert Group report, outlining the X Case guidelines, notes: 'it is not necessary for doctors to be of the opinion that the risk to the woman's life is inevitable or immediate' as part of the test to be applied on whether a termination is permissible. In other words, it can be sufficient, in the doctor's view, for a substantial, although by no means an inevitable, risk to her life to exist to allow a termination to take place.

But still it's not an easy judgement call, and there's the rub really.<...>

Stark

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Sorry, I see what you mean now. I was a little confused about what you were getting at here. A case could be made for Savita being the only exception in a post 8th amendment environment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Hodgers
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Terminally-ill-woman-refused-abortion-in-Cork-hospital--112236794.html

oldrnwisr

Stark wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Hodgers
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Terminally-ill-woman-refused-abortion-in-Cork-hospital--112236794.html

OK, to deal with Sheila Hodgers first, she died on 19 March 1983 and the 8th amendment wasn't passed until September that year. So in the context of GCU's point, the Hodgers case can't be viewed as relevant in a post-8th amendment environment. It is possible that Sheila Hodgers may have received an abortion under the provisions of the 8th amendment which simply weren't there during her pregnancy.

As for Michelle Harte, within the context of the comment made by wisdom win I'm not sure how relevant it is. Granted, the Harte case represents a good example for why the current legal system needs fixing but Harte's death does not seem to be directly attributable to the refusal of an abortion. Even according to the link you cited, Michelle Harte was described as "terminally ill", meaning that she would have died anyway. Not having had an abortion may have shortened that process but the details that I have been able to find so far are quite sketchy, so I am reticent to make any use of the Harte case as a rebuttal to wisdom win's comment.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oldrnwisr wrote: »

<...> Not having had an abortion may have shortened that process but the details that I have been able to find so far are quite sketchy, so I am reticent to make any use of the Harte case as a rebuttal to wisdom win's comment.

Just to add, I've no particular details either. HSE reached a financial settlement with her, so we didn't have any public inquiry or Court case that revealed the precise features of the case. All we might observe is that, if the HSE paid out a settlement, it suggests that they saw a risk of losing a case if it went to Court - in other words, that they saw a prospect of the Courts deciding that they had not provided services to which there was a legal entitlement.

In one or other discussion a while back, I think on Vincent Browne, a pro-life advocate commented that the issue in the Harte case was in relation to her participation in an experimental drugs trial, and the protocol of the drugs trial stipulated that it could not be used on a pregnant woman, rather than the issue being the 8th Amendment obstructing access to normal treatments. I've no idea if that statement is correct. If it is, it would show that the 8th Amendment introduced a complication - presumably, someone with a history of cancer could be very willing to undergo experimental treatment, yet presumably companies would be very reluctant to have the legal exposure if there were side-effects on a foetus.

That said, I stress that I too have very sketchy information. I'm just presenting what has been said.

Bannasidhe

Irish Council for Civil Liberties sends a warning shot across the government's bow

an onerous model may not meet Ireland’s obligations to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) under the ruling in the A, B and C case – the ruling which prompted the current laws.

The Council of Europe, which monitors compliance with ECtHR rulings, has said Ireland has a legal obligation to respond to the ruling by implementing a “legislative or regulatory regime providing effective and accessible procedures whereby pregnant women can establish whether or not they are entitled to a lawful abortion”.

The civil liberties group says the mooted proposals, asking suicidal pregnant women to be assessed by six doctors, would fall foul of the requirements for an an ‘effective’ and ‘accessible’ procedure.

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-ireland-six-doctors-echr-884683-Apr2013/

Sarky

TD Lucinda Creighton outright refuses to legislate for X if suicide is included. One would think, being Minister of State for European affairs, and thus knowing full well the ECHR is running out of patience for X to be legislated, she would know that suicide was the main f*cking point.

Also, she wrote a lovely blog which pretty much amounts to "STFU women, at least you're not in Afghanistan." So think about that ladies, as you veil up and drive to your protests(with a male escort of course to make sure you don't get raped on the way because you're all asking for it really you wanton creatures)!

lazygal

Sarky wrote: »

TD Lucinda Creighton outright refuses to legislate for X if suicide is included. One would think, being Minister of State for European affairs, and thus knowing full well the ECHR is running out of patience for X to be legislated, she would know that suicide was the main f*cking point.

Also, she wrote a lovely blog which pretty much amounts to "STFU women, at least you're not in Afghanistan." So think about that ladies, as you veil up and drive to your protests(with a male escort of course to make sure you don't get raped on the way because you're all asking for it really you wanton creatures)!

That's lovely, Lucinda. Now kindly f-uck off and allow those of us who want control over our reproductive rights to be facilitated.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

TD Lucinda Creighton outright refuses to legislate for X if suicide is included. One would think, being Minister of State for European affairs, and thus knowing full well the ECHR is running out of patience for X to be legislated, she would know that suicide was the main f*cking point.

Also, she wrote a lovely blog which pretty much amounts to "STFU women, at least you're not in Afghanistan." So think about that ladies, as you veil up and drive to your protests(with a male escort of course to make sure you don't get raped on the way because you're all asking for it really you wanton creatures)!

Was just reading Lucinda's opinion on Olivia O'Leary's opinion...:rolleyes:

Ireland is so wonderful for women that I am ever thankful the menopause is upon me and I will never be at the mercy of an Irish maternity hospital

Sarky

You say that now, but wait until the newer more draconian draft comes out. You won't even have to be pregnant.






*May be an exaggeration. But alas, probably only slight.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

You say that now, but wait until the newer more draconian draft comes out. You won't even have to be pregnant.






*May be an exaggeration. But alas, probably only slight.

I'll hire a surrogate.


If I am going to be a trendy pinko queer liberalista I may as well be able to tick all the boxes on the Iona table of objectionability.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Sarky wrote: »

Also, she wrote a lovely blog which pretty much amounts to "STFU women, at least you're not in Afghanistan."

Her posts illustrate the problem of making hyperbolic rhetoric in support of change. Lucinda Creighton gets eight paragraphs out of Olivia O'Leary's "Taliban" rhetoric. This isn't just leaving the goal open for her. It's giving her a score for just turning up.

If Olivia wanted to point to something that makes our Constitution unfit for a democracy, she could point out that the half of the text that matters is written in Irish and is therefore unreadable by most of the population. If an Irish woman asks "where does it say that I can't have an abortion", you'd have to show her this

Admhaíonn an Stát ceart na mbeo gan breith chun a mbeatha agus, ag féachaint go cuí do chomhcheart na máthar chun a beatha, ráthaíonn sé gan cur isteach lena dhlíthe ar an gceart sin agus ráthaíonn fós an ceart sin a chosaint is a shuíomh lena dhlíthe sa mhéid gur féidir é.

Of course, there is a parallel between this and the Taliban view of the world. The only valid Koran text is the original Arabic version.

Sarky

You don't think she could have just said "Olivia, that's a bit hyperbolic don't you think?" and left it at that? Instead of thinking that she NEEDED to take 8 paragraphs to explain how Ireland is not like Afghanistan?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Sarky wrote: »

You don't think she could have just said "Olivia, that's a bit hyperbolic don't you think?" and left it at that? Instead of thinking that she NEEDED to take 8 paragraphs to explain how Ireland is not like Afghanistan?

Sorry, that's my point. Google "straw man argument", if there's really some comprehension problem here.

Her purpose is, absolutely, to frame an argument that says "those pro-choice people are all nutters who rant on about Ireland being under the Taliban". I'm suggesting this illustrates why it's best not to try to bullsh1t people in the first place.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If Olivia wanted to point to something that makes our Constitution unfit for a democracy, she could point out that the half of the text that matters is written in Irish and is therefore unreadable by most of the population. If an Irish woman asks "where does it say that I can't have an abortion", you'd have to show her this

Of course, there is a parallel between this and the Taliban view of the world. The only valid Koran text is the original Arabic version.

You keep saying this nonsense that the Constitution is written half in Irish - it isn't and you have acknowledged you know this but yet here again you are claiming we would have to show women who want an abortion the Irish version when it can be read in English

Full text - in English - http://www.constitution.org/cons/ireland/constitution_ireland-en.htm

Article 40.3.3 is right there - in English.

3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

Or here where the English version is directly below the Irish http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1983/en/act/cam/0008/print.html

SCHEDULE

Part I

3° Admhaíonn an Stát ceart na mbeo gan breith chun a mbeatha agus, ag féachaint go cuí do chomhcheart na máthar chun a beatha, ráthaíonn sé gan cur isteach lena dhlíthe ar an gceart sin agus ráthaíonn fós an ceart sin a chosaint is a shuíomh lena dhlíthe sa mhéid gur féidir é.

Part II

3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

And what does the language it is written in have to do with abortion?

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

....... a pro-life advocate commented that the issue in the Harte case was in relation to her participation in an experimental drugs trial, and the protocol of the drugs trial stipulated that it could not be used on a pregnant woman, rather than the issue being the 8th Amendment obstructing access to normal treatments. I've no idea if that statement is correct.

Yeah, fair enough (bolded bit). Neither have I.
But hypothetically, how is it that participation in a drug trial (to hopefully save your life) necessitating an abortion and the 8th amendment obstructing access to normal treatment are any different? That's the SAME issue. Not a different one.

Nodin

DarkJager wrote: »

[Creighton].

Doubtless we'll be seeing her soon again in the "Gay marriage" thread...