Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Bannasidhe

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

My girlfriend was there, and near enough to the front to probably be in that picture - d'you have a higher resolution copy?

Sorry no, I was linked it by a friend who was there. Not sure where she got it.

rainbow kirby

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sorry no, I was linked it by a friend who was there. Not sure where she got it.

Looks like one of the pics from thejournal.ie.

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Link to the relevant legislation please?

There are different kinds of law that apply in Ireland. EU law and constitutional law take precedence over any case law or any legislation.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

There are different kinds of law that apply in Ireland. EU law and constitutional law take precedence over any case law or any legislation.

Really???

If that is true then why is there an issue about legislating for the X Case??

Why did the European Court of Human Rights tell Ireland to clarify it's legal position re: Abortion??

Show me the legislation which allows the for termination of pregnancies in Ireland.

swampgas

I've been reading up on the legal history of abortion in Ireland, I had no idea it would turn out to be such a mess.

IMO the 1861 Offences against the person act should be updated or repealed, and the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution should be amended or repealed. Neither are fit for purpose. The Eighth amendment was intended to prevent the introduction of legal abortion through legislation. It is so badly worded that it lead to a number of other referendums in a number of attempts to clarify it.

To my mind the best approach would be a sweeping reform of the constitutional amendments, but I very much doubt that will happen.

And based on some of the comments I see online, I suspect that a depressingly high percentage of the population are still vehemently and violently opposed to abortion in any circumstances. It feels rather depressingly like the bad old days of the 80's when we had no divorce and no contraception, and by God we were happy to have it that way :-/

swampgas

A comment posted to one of the the Irish Times' opinion pieces lead me to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKifAdn8HCQ

An angry Cenk lets loose. Contains some very strong language, but reflects how I feel.

recedite

EU would normally try to harmonise laws, but so far has chosen not to overrule any national laws when it comes to abortion.
After the x case there was some doubt about whether the threat of self harm was to be considered a real threat to the womans life. It was not specified in either the constitution or in legislation. The 1992 and 2002 referendums tried to affirm that it wasn't. As they were rejected, one might assume that the Dail should then legislate to allow for abortion whenever self harm is threatened. But the 2002 vote was incredibly close; 49.6%;50.4%. Politicians are essentially populists, and no politician is going to fancy those odds.
Either way, it has no bearing on the Sativa case, because the threat to her life was by way of miscarriage and infection, which was a very real and quantifiable threat.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

EU would normally try to harmonise laws, but so far has chosen not to overrule any national laws when it comes to abortion.
After the x case there was some doubt about whether the threat of self harm was to be considered a real threat to the womans life. It was not specified in either the constitution or in legislation. The 1992 and 2002 referendums tried to affirm that it wasn't. As they were rejected, one might assume that the Dail should then legislate to allow for abortion whenever self harm is threatened. But the 2002 vote was incredibly close; 49.6%;50.4%. Politicians are essentially populists, and no politician is going to fancy those odds.
Either way, it has no bearing on the Sativa case, because the threat to her life was by way of miscarriage and infection, which was a very real and quantifiable threat.

Once again - can you please supply a link to the legislation that permits the termination of a pregnancy in Ireland?

Somecrimesitry

swampgas wrote: »

A comment posted to one of the the Irish Times' opinion pieces lead me to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKifAdn8HCQ

An angry Cenk lets loose. Contains some very strong language, but reflects how I feel.

This.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

recedite wrote: »

EU would normally try to harmonise laws, but so far has chosen not to overrule any national laws when it comes to abortion.

In fairness, I think there's a bit of confusion here. The European Court of Human Rights (which is not the European Court of Justice and not an EU institution) made the judgment about Ireland needing to have greater clarity in defining when abortion is legal here. What that judgment found was that abortion was not a right under the European Convention on Human Rights, but that, given that the Irish Courts have already found our Constitution permits abortion in limited circumstances, the State needed to make it clear when precisely a woman can expect to have access to abortion. The ECHJ decisions are not immediately binding, in the way that ECJ decisions are.

To take a case to the European Court of Justice, there would have to be some basis in one of the EU Treaties. The Treaties assume that any service provided in any Member State is lawful in all other Member States, unless there is some specific reason why it shouldn't be. I'm not aware of abortion being a service that meets that criterion, although I think the freedom of information stuff has something to do with it being lawful to advertise services in other Member States.

In any event, while you are right that EU law takes precedence over domestic law (including the Constitution) the EU would only harmonise laws in an area in which it has been given jurisdiction. I don't think that abortion is one of those areas.

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Once again - can you please supply a link to the legislation that permits the termination of a pregnancy in Ireland?

Its a bit annoying the way you keep repeating that. Can you understand that not all law is legislation?
Not all black birds are blackbirds.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Once again - can you please supply a link to the legislation that permits the termination of a pregnancy in Ireland?

You are correct that there is no specific legislation, such as an Act of the Oireachtas. There is only the Constitutional provision and it's interpretation by the Supreme Court.

That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this case. When we've mobs parading, convinced they know what nobody knows yet, it's hard to maintain a rational discussion. But, as yet, we've no reason to believe that the outcome in any case of maternal death in Ireland has any crossover with the extent to which abortion is permitted under the Constitution.

Incidently, part of the problem in drafting legislation is the way that the Supreme Court had to fudge its decision in the X Case. It actually doesn't make a lot of sense to say that a expression of a desire to suicide represents an immanent threat to the life of the mother. Its more evidence of mental instability than anything else. It's hard to envisage how they can legislate for this in any manner that won't lead to women recreating that scene when Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles points a gun at his head and says "don't move or I shoot the ******".

You could almost make a general principle of it. Never underestimate the capacity of the Irish polity to react with speed and incoherence in the face of critical international comment.

We probably need another referendum, but I doubt there's a capacity to have a meaningful discussion on how it should be framed. Even if you did find a suitable technical wording, you don't know how it would be voted on. Welcome to the eighties, man.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Its a bit annoying the way you keep repeating that. Can you understand that not all law is legislation?
Not all black birds are blackbirds.

It's a bit annoying when you keep insisting it is possible but fail utterly to provide a link to the law that specifies it is legal.

recedite

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The Treaties assume that any service provided in any Member State is lawful in all other Member States.

Yes and just to clarify this, it means if someone goes abroad for an abortion in circumstances where it is not legal here, they cannot be prosecuted when they get back. It does not mean that if a certain kind of abortion is legal in one EU state it is automatically legal in another.
Hence the right to travel and to advertise etc..
Such circumstances would be where there is no apparent threat to the pregnant woman's life.

Nodin

recedite wrote: »

Its a bit annoying the way you keep repeating that. Can you understand that not all law is legislation?
Not all black birds are blackbirds.

The law still in force until new legislation is drafted is the 1861 offences against the person act, afaik.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You are correct that there is no specific legislation, such as an Act of the Oireachtas. There is only the Constitutional provision and it's interpretation by the Supreme Court.

That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this case. When we've mobs parading, convinced they know what nobody knows yet, it's hard to maintain a rational discussion. But, as yet, we've no reason to believe that the outcome in any case of maternal death in Ireland has any crossover with the extent to which abortion is permitted under the Constitution.

Incidently, part of the problem in drafting legislation is the way that the Supreme Court had to fudge its decision in the X Case. It actually doesn't make a lot of sense to say that a expression of a desire to suicide represents an immanent threat to the life of the mother. Its more evidence of mental instability than anything else. It's hard to envisage how they can legislate for this in any manner that won't lead to women recreating that scene when Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles points a gun at his head and says "don't move or I shoot the ******".

You could almost make a general principle of it. Never underestimate the capacity of the Irish polity to react with speed and incoherence in the face of critical international comment.

We probably need another referendum, but I doubt there's a capacity to have a meaningful discussion on how it should be framed. Even if you did find a suitable technical wording, you don't know how it would be voted on. Welcome to the eighties, man.

I understand all of that.

It is a legal grey area and there is no legislation that clarifies matters.

We have the 8th Amendment which enshrines the right to life of the unborn in the Constitution.

We have the X-Case Referendum which has yet to be legislated for.
We have Supreme Court rulings, we have ECHR rulings.

What we do not have is a LAW.

It is this lack that causes confusion.

Yet we have people insisting it is legal in certain circumstances when that is by no means clear as there is currently no legislation.

We have people saying it already happens - but all we have to support that is anecdotal evidence as the DoH/HSE do not keep the relevant records.

You are quick to dismiss everyone who is calling for the legal position to be clarified and the legislation voted for 20 years ago to be implemented and is prepared to march in support of that cause as a mob - makes your position clear imho.

I, personally, do not think it is acceptable for a succession of governments to ignore the stated will of the people by refusing to legislate for 20 years.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's a bit annoying when you keep insisting it is possible but fail utterly to provide a link to the law that specifies it is legal.

I'm not sure it this helps:

http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/(WebFiles)/B95A1F8B726975F18025765E003C2C6E/$FILE/AG%20v%20X_1992.rtf

There's no law, in the sense of a Act. You just have to wade through the stuff above, being the Supreme Court Judgment. Embedded in the text, you'll eventually be able to decode that abortion is permitted where there's a substantial threat to the life of the mother, plus that the Supreme Court really feel that the Oireachtas, and not the Courts, should be defining what precisely that means.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are quick to dismiss everyone who is calling for the legal position to be clarified and the legislation voted for 20 years ago to be implemented and is prepared to march in support of that cause as a mob - makes your position clear imho.

Really? What's my position?

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not sure it this helps:

http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/(WebFiles)/B95A1F8B726975F18025765E003C2C6E/$FILE/AG%20v%20X_1992.rtf

There's no law, in the sense of a Act. You just have to wade through the stuff above, being the Supreme Court Judgment. Embedded in the text, you'll eventually be able to decode that abortion is permitted where there's a substantial threat to the life of the mother, plus that the Supreme Court really feel that the Oireachtas, and not the Courts, should be defining what precisely that means.

and the Oireachtas has completely failed to do so leading to a legal grey area...

That is completely unacceptable in what is meant to be a democracy.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Really? What's my position?

Why did you use the word 'mob' for a peaceful protest?

Nodin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

We probably need another referendum, but I doubt there's a capacity to have a meaningful discussion on how it should be framed. Even if you did find a suitable technical wording, you don't know how it would be voted on. Welcome to the eighties, man.

I don't see how or why the fuck we need another referendum when theres been no legislation made on the back the last few.

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

I don't see how or why the fuck we need another referendum when theres been no legislation made on the back the last few.

Because we got it wrong* 20 years ago?


*wrong in this context means we did not choose the option the government wanted us too.

Nodin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Because we got it wrong* 20 years ago?


*wrong in this context means we did not choose the option the government wanted us too.

...theres no way in hell you'll get in a measure that removes due consideration to the mother. FF tried to remove suicide risk as a cause and that was thrown out.

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

...theres no way in hell you'll get in a measure that removes due consideration to the mother. FF tried to remove suicide risk as a cause and that was thrown out.

Which makes it unlikely they will go to a referendum but will continue to drag their heels.

Nodin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which makes it unlikely they will go to a referendum but will continue to drag their heels.

...I got the impression that was the plan originally (from newspaper article linked earlier). Whether they've the neck to drag it out after this tragedy remains to be seen.

recedite

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

We probably need another referendum, but I doubt there's a capacity to have a meaningful discussion on how it should be framed. Even if you did find a suitable technical wording, you don't know how it would be voted on. Welcome to the eighties, man.

It will come, it will be badly worded, and the extremists on both sides will temporarily unite to oppose it.
Maybe it will even pose two or more different questions, while demanding one simple yes or no answer, like the last one in 2002.

Whats needed is a series of simple statements, each with a tick the box type answer, such as...
1. I never agree with abortion.
2. I only agree where there is a verifiable threat to life of mother.
3. I agree if the woman threatens self harm.
4. I agree if her self esteem or career is likely to be adversely affected.
5. I agree if both parents agree.
6. It should be entirely up to the woman, nobody else has any right to interfere in her body.

Then another series of questions on the rights of the unborn;
1. They have no rights.
2. They have full equal human rights after fertilisation.
3.They have full human rights after implantation.
3. They have a gradation of human rights, ranging from almost none at fertilisation to almost equal at full-term.

Then using the info gleaned from this referendum, a reasonable legislation could be drafted. Its not easy, but not particularly difficult to achieve either. At least we already have the tradition here in Ireland of putting difficult questions to the people.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why did you use the word 'mob' for a peaceful protest?

Why are you answering a question with a question?

Nodin wrote: »

I don't see how or why the fuck we need another referendum when theres been no legislation made on the back the last few.

Because possibly the limited grounds available under the Constitution won't materially change anything.

Unless we form a procedure where every woman in need of an abortion solemnly declares herself to be a bit nuts, and likely to top herself Unless She Gets Exactly What She Wants Right Now. How someone displaying evidence of mental instability is meant to be able to give consent to a medical procedure beats me but, hey, the Supreme Court are cool with it.

Now, maybe something can be achieved within the confines of the existing wording. I'm just raising the kind of issues that need to be considered, and which won't be found by sharing a poignant moment by candlelight in Kildare Street or while marching down O'Connell Street having a Rosa Parks moment.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Why are you answering a question with a question?Because possibly the limited grounds available under the Constitution won't materially change anything.

Unless we form a procedure where every woman in need of an abortion solemnly declares herself to be a bit nuts, and likely to top herself Unless She Gets Exactly What She Wants Right Now. How someone displaying evidence of mental instability is meant to be able to give consent to a medical procedure beats me but, hey, the Supreme Court are cool with it.

Now, maybe something can be achieved within the confines of the existing wording. I'm just raising the kind of issues that need to be considered, and which won't be found by sharing a poignant moment by candlelight in Kildare Street or while marching down O'Connell Street having a Rosa Parks moment.

Your use of the word 'mob' implies a lawless, out of control, groups of people wrecking the place - which therefore suggests this is how you regard the recent vigils and protests. This is not what has happened.

What has happened is people have exercised their democratic right to protest at government's continued reluctance to legislate in accordance with a referendum held 20 years ago. They have done so peacefully.

As for your 'Rosa Parks' comment - do you also wish to call those who marched peacefully for the end of segregation in the U.S. a 'mob'?

We have been waiting 20 years for the issues to be 'considered' - how much longer do you suggest we wait?

Nodin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Why are you answering a question with a question?Because possibly the limited grounds available under the Constitution won't materially change anything.

Unless we form a procedure where every woman in need of an abortion solemnly declares herself to be a bit nuts, and likely to top herself Unless She Gets Exactly What She Wants Right Now. How someone displaying evidence of mental instability is meant to be able to give consent to a medical procedure beats me but, hey, the Supreme Court are cool with it.

Now, maybe something can be achieved within the confines of the existing wording. I'm just raising the kind of issues that need to be considered, and which won't be found by sharing a poignant moment by candlelight in Kildare Street or while marching down O'Connell Street having a Rosa Parks moment.

....the amendment covers more than risk of suicide as a grounds for abortion.

I sort of got the vibe you don't think much of the march from earlier posts, so theres no need to carrying on the sneering for my sake.

swampgas

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm just raising the kind of issues that need to be considered, and which won't be found by sharing a poignant moment by candlelight in Kildare Street or while marching down O'Connell Street having a Rosa Parks moment.

IMO that's a little bit harsh and unkind. A woman has died because our legal system is a mess, people are upset and angry, and want to demonstrate that in a public way. I have no idea why you need to be so snide about it.

Regardless, I think public demonstrations can be effective. Are you claiming that Rosa Parks' actions had no affect at all?