Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

GCU Flexible Demeanour

swampgas wrote: »

Perhaps after this legislation is passed the debate can move away from the narrow issue of legal clarity, and towards the broader issue of when abortions should be legally allowed, as this (IMO) is a much bigger issue.

As reaction to the Bill goes on, I feel your comment here is becoming more and more relevant. We needed to see a Bill to see how limited legislation for X would be. And, just for that limited purpose the Bill is probably as good as it gets. If the suicide ground wasn't subject to the exact proposed procedure, it would just be limited in some other way that would make it just as meaningless.

But, absolutely, this Bill makes clear all that will be possible within the Constitution as it stands. Just as you say, the only discussion to be had after this will be over what additional situations people feel should be included.

jank

marienbad wrote: »

President just might refer it, you never know .

Never going to happen. The president is non-political.

Hotblack Desiato

yeah, just yesterday he was getting all non-political on the ECB's ass.

BluntGuy

Dades wrote: »

That interview really drove it home, the utter ruthlessness of some of these 'pro-life' advocates.

When that poor woman described in tears how she had to spend 3 months carrying a baby while people around her congratulated her and asked about her nursery plans etc - and that soulless dragon suggests she could have gone into care like some small town teenager being sent to the convent until the 'problem' disappears...

I really hope a lot of people watched that.

+1 Summed it up perfectly.

Could have cried for that lady. Utterly heartbreaking. I'm not sure what kind of mental acrobatics it takes to make yourself comfortable with the implications of adopting such a heartless position, whilst stressing how much you sympathise with the situation. These people need to have it knocked into their heads that prolonging suffering =/= "valuing life".

Sulla Felix

B0jangles wrote: »

It's like these people literally cannot comprehend that other people are not identical to themselves; that people react differently to different circumstances.

I think it's a kind of moral simplicity. Without any statistical backing at all, I'd be willing to bet that there's a strong bias between absolute and relative moral viewpoints for anti-abortion and pro-choice respectively.

jank

ninja900 wrote: »

yeah, just yesterday he was getting all non-political on the ECB's ass.

It is one thing commenting about the ECB and Europe its quite another to go into this abortion debated two footed.

28064212

jank wrote: »

Never going to happen. The president is non-political.

Nothing to do with his politics. If he feels a law may be unconstitutional, he has every right, is in fact required, to refer it to the Supreme Court

marienbad wrote: »

28064212 wrote: »

The Supreme Court can't do anything without a hard case, and such instances are vanishingly rare. Even moreso since they will just use the "Irish Solution" (the UK), rather than subject themselves to the public scrutiny (and in some cases, vitriol) that such a case would undoubtedly bring

President just might refer it, you never know

I doubt it. The legislation seems to fulfil the constitutional requirements of the X Case. Even if he did, and the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional, that wouldn't be a good thing. We'd just be back in the same place, with another few years of political feet-dragging in order to legislate for the tiny fraction of cases for a solution that no-one will avail of (not while the UK option is there). At least with X (seemingly) legislated for, we can actually have a real discussion about the place of abortion in Ireland

GCU Flexible Demeanour

28064212 wrote: »

Even if he did, and the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional, that wouldn't be a good thing.

And if he referred it, and the Courts found it constitutional, it might not be a good thing either, as that would make the law immune to any further challenge. That's one of the reasons Presidents are slow to refer a Bill, unless there's a really obvious problem. It is very hard for the Courts to establish if a Bill is constitutional in the absence of an actual case where someone is claiming a right is being denied. The abortion issue is a good example of that - it is very hard to predict what exact set of circumstances might arise, such as could require a termination. It might be best to let the Bill go.

Turtwig

SARKY STAPHHHH!!!

Don't send that email! ! !

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And if he referred it, and the Courts found it constitutional, it might not be a good thing either, as that would make the law immune to any further challenge. That's one of the reasons Presidents are slow to refer a Bill, unless there's a really obvious problem. It is very hard for the Courts to establish if a Bill is constitutional in the absence of an actual case where someone is claiming a right is being denied. The abortion issue is a good example of that - it is very hard to predict what exact set of circumstances might arise, such as could require a termination. It might be best to let the Bill go.

Oh Myyyy - Agree with GCU. :eek:

If Higgen's refers it to the Council of State and it is deemed to be Constitutional that it makes it near impossible for it to be challenged through the courts.

What I can see happening is in a month, year, decade someone will be affected personally and have the courage and fortitude to fight through the courts - it's the way things happen in Ireland.

Some woman's personal tragedy will hit the headlines and people across the country will say 'oh deary me, this isn't what we meant at all, at all. We never wanted this to happen, Shure the poor craytur! That's terribel so it is. We were just trying to protect the little baybees. Who thought this could happen???' *wring hands*

Then it's candle lit vigils, anger and home made posters Vs Novenas, Big screens, professionally produced posters and sanctimonious BS over a PA system.
Polls will say 78-80% are in favour of changing what ever bit led to whatever horror is being inflicted on the poor woman at the heart of the 'new' case.
Iona, SPUC, YD etc will deny this and say Ireland has never voted for abortion. Ever.

Collectively, as a society, we seems unable to rationally work out the possible repercussions of an act and instead wait for a tragedy to get us motivated to try and change things.

Does my head in!

Morag

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I don't know about repealing the Eight amendment. Changing it certainly, but repealing it entirely (i.e. deleting 40.3.3) is not something any sane person should favour. In the absence of the 8th amendment we would only have the 1861 act to regulate abortion, which didn't really work all that well (e.g. Sheila Hodgers), so what we need to do is alter the text of 40.3.3 to widen the reproductive rights of women. If we repeal the 8th amendment then we're relying on legislation and we've seen this week what a complete cluster**** that's going to be.

I agree that while elective abortions would probably not find widespread support, circumstances like rape, incest, foetal viability and maternal health would all find strong support (were it to be put to the electorate).

It should be repealed, it should not be in the Constitution to begin with.

oldrnwisr

Morag wrote: »

It should be repealed, it should not be in the Constitution to begin with.

OK, at the risk of repeating myself I'm going to give this one more try.

If, right now, the 8th amendment were repealed and by that I mean Article 40.3.3 deleted, then the only legal commentary on abortion would be Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Even though it was an unintended consequence, what the introduction of the 8th amendment did was provide for the anti-abortion legislation to be challenged on the grounds of a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother.

As I have said, the constitution is important as much for securing rights as it is for telling us what we can't do. There needs to be a reference to abortion in the constitution but phrased in such a way that it secures the reproductive rights of women.

If we are to return to a pre 8th amendment environment then we are to rely solely on legislation. There are several problems with this approach. Firstly, abortion rights become dependent on the whims of the ruling party rather than the will of the people, meaning we could have one right wing party who bring in a law banning all abortions under any circumstances. Secondly, if legislation is introduced which bans all abortions completely, it cannot be challenged for constitutionality if the constitution makes no comment on the issue.

What we need is a new amendment to secure reproductive rights backed up by sensible legislation. It's going to take a while though.

CerebralCortex

Boxing match on Kenny RTE between the Iona Institute and some opponents. Casey is threatening to walk out. So funny!

StudentDad

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, at the risk of repeating myself I'm going to give this one more try.

If, right now, the 8th amendment were repealed and by that I mean Article 40.3.3 deleted, then the only legal commentary on abortion would be Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Even though it was an unintended consequence, what the introduction of the 8th amendment did was provide for the anti-abortion legislation to be challenged on the grounds of a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother.

As I have said, the constitution is important as much for securing rights as it is for telling us what we can't do. There needs to be a reference to abortion in the constitution but phrased in such a way that it secures the reproductive rights of women.

If we are to return to a pre 8th amendment environment then we are to rely solely on legislation. There are several problems with this approach. Firstly, abortion rights become dependent on the whims of the ruling party rather than the will of the people, meaning we could have one right wing party who bring in a law banning all abortions under any circumstances. Secondly, if legislation is introduced which bans all abortions completely, it cannot be challenged for constitutionality if the constitution makes no comment on the issue.

What we need is a new amendment to secure reproductive rights backed up by sensible legislation. It's going to take a while though.

Fascinating how the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - still in force in the UK although updated, it to my mind anyway a rather well written bit of legislation.

It's also fairly interesting that the UK ticks along quite nicely without a written constitution.

What did we do when we got it into our heads that we wanted to be independent? We kept the main body of common law and statute and tacked on a right wing, fundamentalist constitution that as of now is totally redundant. Well done us.

To my mind if we want a constitution - the European Convention on Human Rights would do quite nicely. The Irish Constitution is a relic and needs to be abolished or updated.

SD

Morag

I don't think that our reproductive rights should be in the Constitution at all.
It should be between a woman (or transman) and their doctor.
Canada has no criminal law when it comes to abortion, there are medical procedures and policies and regulations which are sufficient.

robindch

oldrnwisr wrote: »

It's going to take a while though.

The amount of time being spent on this debate in the media, the faux "balance" achieved by lazy types who allow YD, the Tooters and the black and pink-clad sausage-fest that is the church, and the whole grizzled, arrogant, soulless, cold and intemperate dishonesty of the no-side -- quite separate from any opinions that one might have one way or the other -- really makes me want to abandon the country and bang the dust from my shoes while leaving.

When will this all end?!

Morag

I reckon it will take another 20 years, we need a certain generation to die out and for those who are of the generations younger to start making political change.

Sarky

Might take longer. Ireland seems to be set up in such a way as to encourage the younger people to give up and emigrate to a less bloody stupid country. It doesn't help that the cultural attitude to almost everything is "Well if you don't like it then don't let the door hit you on the way out".

Delirium

Doctors For Choice Ireland respond to Breda O'Briens article (27 Apr) in today's Irish Times.

(Sorry I can't give a link, but it appeared in my FB timeline sans link)

Sir, – Breda O’Brien (Opinion, April 27th) has grossly misrepresented the mental health evidence in relation to abortion. She derides the “faith-based dogma” of “fundamentalists” and praises “scientists” “adhering only to empirical evidence”.

Good scientists, however, do not rush to judgment on new research. The research Ms O’Brien quotes, by New Zealand academic David Fergusson and two colleagues, was just published in April in a relatively obscure psychiatric journal and has not yet been scientifically critiqued by Fergusson’s peers.

Good scientists do not ignore the previous research. Two previously published systematic scientific reviews in 2008 and 2011 by organisations representing tens of thousands of psychologists and psychiatrists have found no increase in mental health problems in women choosing an abortion. These studies have been critiqued by peers and their findings are well-founded scientifically. While Fergusson is correct that there is a lack of direct evidence of mental health benefits in abortion, there is indirect historical evidence that in countries where access to abortion is restricted the suicide rate in pregnancy is higher.

Most importantly, good scientists do not misrepresent the very evidence they are claiming to promote. In this same research paper David Fergusson concludes: “. . . it would be premature to conclude emphatically that this evidence is sufficient grounds for believing that abortion has adverse effects on mental health”.

Despite that Ms O’Brien emphatically did just that.

She also failed to mention Fergusson’s own conclusion in his paper of the alternative to certifying on mental health grounds: “On the face of it the most straightforward way of resolving these tensions between the law and clinical practice . . . is to extend these criteria to include serious threats to the social, educational, or economic wellbeing of the woman and her immediate family as legitimate grounds for authorising abortion”.

In other words, the only scientific paper the anti-choice movement can find which seems to back up its conclusion for restricting abortion actually recommends the opposite: an easing of the restrictions to make abortion more easily available. This means the fact stands that there is no scientific basis for restricting access to abortion unless, of course, we rely on the faith-based dogma of fundamentalists. – Yours, etc,

Dr PEADAR O’GRADY,

Consultant Child

Psychiatrist,

Doctors For Choice,

Parnell Square East,

Dublin 1.

oldrnwisr

Morag wrote: »

I don't think that our reproductive rights should be in the Constitution at all. It should be between a woman (or transman) and their doctor. Canada has no criminal law when it comes to abortion, there are medical procedures and policies and regulations which are sufficient.

Seriously? You don't think that the Constitution should be used to secure basic rights? Without the constitution your rights are subject to the whims of politicians. That's why, for as long as we have a constitution at all, it should be made to work in the best interests of the citizens. There are some very important rights secured in the constitution. What if 40.4.1 or 40.5 or 43.1.2 or 44.2.1 were dispensed with? If the right to access safe abortion services isn't provided for in the constitution then you run the risk of having access to abortion locked out under any circumstances if such legislation is passed.

Sarky

koth wrote: »

Doctors For Choice Ireland respond to Breda O'Briens article (27 Apr) in today's Irish Times.

(Sorry I can't give a link, but it appeared in my FB timeline sans link)

Heh, the fundies have terrible problems noticing any research that contains a warning about jumping to conclusions.

LittleBook

lazygal wrote: »

Pro life is pro birth, regardless of anything else. Some weird foetus worship or something, leading to a total lack of empathy. Berry Kiely has opus dei links, AFAIK.

Yes, she's on the board of management of Rosemont which is "entrusted to the prelature of opus dei".

I wonder if people hearing the title "Dr" assume some kind of impartiality on the subject or are they aware of these kinds of connections at all.

Morag

koth wrote: »

Doctors For Choice Ireland respond to Breda O'Briens article (27 Apr) in today's Irish Times.

(Sorry I can't give a link, but it appeared in my FB timeline sans link)

Here's the link

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/the-abortion-debate-1.1380678

Morag

The 8th amendment actually lessens my rights as a citizen, it doesn't protect me, it puts me, my health and life at risk.
Men have the right to all the medical treatment they need, I don't.

StudentDad

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Seriously? You don't think that the Constitution should be used to secure basic rights? Without the constitution your rights are subject to the whims of politicians. That's why, for as long as we have a constitution at all, it should be made to work in the best interests of the citizens. There are some very important rights secured in the constitution. What if 40.4.1 or 40.5 or 43.1.2 or 44.2.1 were dispensed with? If the right to access safe abortion services isn't provided for in the constitution then you run the risk of having access to abortion locked out under any circumstances if such legislation is passed.

It's arguable (no constitutional crisis yet anyway) that if such provisions were removed from the Irish Constitution, the European Courts could find such legislation to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It could also be argued that the Irish Constitution is irrelevant anyway as all national laws are subservient to EC law. It hasn't been an issue yet simply because the ECJ hasn't pulled rank in that matter yet, they promised not to.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the European Parliament legalised abortion within the EU
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Recommendation+to+legalize+abortion+approved.+(European+Union).-a099289900

That was in 2002 and chances are it won't happen but ....


SD

lazygal

Morag wrote: »

The 8th amendment actually lessens my rights as a citizen, it doesn't protect me, it puts me, my health and life at risk.
Men have the right to all the medical treatment they need, I don't.

I agree, it puts my life on an equal footing with a zygote. I consider that a gross violation of my rights. No man is compared to a zygote in the constitution, only women, who are annoyingly referred to as 'mothers' regardless of whether they want to be.

marienbad

jank wrote: »

Never going to happen. The president is non-political.

And so is this bill, it has happened before.

Corkfeen

Sarky wrote: »

Might take longer. Ireland seems to be set up in such a way as to encourage the younger people to give up and emigrate to a less bloody stupid country. It doesn't help that the cultural attitude to almost everything is "Well if you don't like it then don't let the door hit you on the way out".

Ya, i'm genuinely considering getting out of the country as soon as my postgrad work is finished. I know they say you should work the political system from within but that really doesn't seem to work here. It's the people who rabble that prevent this country from even making the slightest bit of progress.

Sarky

I don't think there's any changing a system so ignorant and corrupt from within, short of a TD suicide-bombing Leinster House on Budget Day, the one day of the year you can actually see a full Dáil.

StudentDad

Corkfeen wrote: »

Ya, i'm genuinely considering getting out of the country as soon as my postgrad work is finished. I know they say you should work the political system from within but that really doesn't seem to work here. It's the people who rabble that prevent this country from even making the slightest bit of progress.

Yep we live in a very conservative country and the govt. is bound by an equally conservative constitution.

SD