Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Lingua Franca

robp wrote: »

Its time to eat your word Lingua Franca...



BTW her name is Niamh Ui Bhriain actually. Sativa's husband is an engineer, not a scientist. You also failed to read when I wrote 'if this the case'. Spare us your idiotic remarks.

Is it? Have you eaten ANY of your words, in the multitude of times you've been proven wrong in this thread? :pac: Here's the salt. You go first, you have a lot more in front of you.

By the way, my words were "we'll lend it credence". Now it can have some credence. Now, what was it's relevance, again? A great big pro choice conspiracy, was it?

Turtwig

Worth a read imo.

Fintan O'Toole. wrote:

Savita and Praveen Halappanavar walked unknowingly into Ireland’s grey zone of hidden realities, unspoken truths and word games

On Monday, Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore greeted Ireland’s election to the United Nations Human Rights Council as a “major endorsement” of the country, a sign that its battered reputation had been restored in the eyes of the world. “This is a great day for Ireland and for the values which are dear to us,” he added.

Within two days, Ireland’s values were yet again being held up around the world, not as a beacon of human rights but as a shameful departure from civilised norms. The slow, agonising and perhaps unnecessary death of Savita Halappanavar seemed to many people in distant continents to signify a country in which ideology takes precedence over women’s lives.

The two events were actually related, albeit in the most ironic way.

When it looked at Ireland in 2007, the UN Committee on Human Rights criticised Ireland’s failure to clarify its abortion laws, reiterating “its concern regarding the highly restrictive circumstances under which women can lawfully have an abortion in the State” and regretting “that the progress in this regard is slow”.

In its draft report on the progress made since then, the Government states that abortion is actually legal in Ireland but adds that no statistics are maintained in relation to the “number of abortions taking place in Ireland each year”.

The Economic and Social Research Institute has pointed out that some information is available in statistical form, under the heading of “Pregnancy with abortive outcome”.

However, the bizarre official position is: abortions happen in Ireland, but we don’t count them. If Savita Halappanavar had indeed had the abortion she asked for, it would not even have appeared as a number on an official spreadsheet.

This position was also argued by the previous government before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of A, B and C versus Ireland. The government told the court there was nothing at all murky about Ireland’s abortion laws: “The procedure for obtaining a lawful abortion in Ireland was clear. The decision was made, like any other major medical matter, by a patient in consultation with her doctor.”

But when the court requested basic details, the government was unable to supply them. Asked by the court how many of these “lawful abortions” take place in Ireland every year, the government, as the court put it, “revealed a lack of knowledge on the part of the State as to, inter alia, who carries out lawful abortions in Ireland and where”.

This is the Irish solution to an Irish problem. Under the X case ruling, it is, as the government’s lawyers pleaded, “lawful to terminate a pregnancy in Ireland if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by a termination of the pregnancy”. But this lawful activity is the subject of wilful ignorance. No one in the State officially knows who is carrying out abortions, how many they are performing and which hospitals will or will not perform them. The State’s considered position appears to be: “Ah well, go ahead, but don’t tell us about it.”

The purpose of this extraordinary position is about the only thing that is clear in this whole area. It is to keep abortions, even those that are lawfully performed in the very restrictive circumstances allowed by the Constitution, under the carpet. Women have a constitutional right to terminate a life-threatening pregnancy.

But the exercise of that right is deliberately “unknown”. It is meant to be a secret. For the women who find themselves in this difficult position, the message is none too subtle: this is not something we talk about. Shame clings to a procedure that logically should produce pride: the saving of a life.

Why? Because there is very strong pressure on politicians from anti-abortion groups to uphold the fiction that abortion is never necessary to save the life of a mother. These groups adopt two (actually rather inconsistent) positions: (a) abortion is never in fact necessary to save a woman’s life; and (b) even if it is, it’s not abortion.

This insistence hinges on a linguistic manoeuvre: there can be no such thing as an abortion to save a mother – simply because we choose to define such a procedure as not being an abortion. As one of the leading anti-abortion figures in Irish medicine, Prof Eamon O’Dwyer, puts it, “There is a fundamental difference between abortion and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.” In other words, abortions we approve of must not be called abortions.

These word games may seem abstract and harmless. Does it matter that a doctor who performs a life-saving termination of pregnancy salves his conscience by telling himself that it is not an abortion? Unfortunately it does. The combination of the State’s refusal to record abortions and the ideological insistence that some abortions are not abortions confines the subject to a grey zone. We do not yet know the full circumstances of Halappanavar’s death, but it seems likely that, if septicaemia was the primary culprit, uncertainty, hesitation and fear were secondary causes.

There is, in all of this, not so much a lack of clarity as a refusal of clarity. An acknowledgment of the basic truth that abortion is sometimes necessary to save a woman’s life would make it necessary to be honest and define the how, where, when and why of lawful abortion in Ireland. That in turn would mean giving up on the idea that Ireland is, as Halappanavar’s husband, Praveen, recalled being told, “a Catholic country” – an almost unique place in which the evil of abortion has been kept at bay.

Symbolism is everything. Ireland has abortion rates that are typical of western Europe (albeit that the vast majority of Irish terminations are performed in Britain). Women are entitled to information on abortion services and to travel for terminations. The State itself acknowledges openly that “lawful abortions” are carried out here. Abortion, in other words, is a fact of life in Ireland, just as it is in comparable countries. What remains utterly distinctive about Ireland is its refusal to acknowledge that fact. The symbolism must not be contaminated by the reality. The women whose messy realities contradict the desired image must remain invisible.

There have been many times in Irish history when some people have believed that symbols are worth dying for. But now Ireland has to decide whether they’re worth forcing someone else – a vibrant young woman desperate to live – to die for.

The misfortune of Savita and Praveen Halappanavar was to walk unknowingly into Ireland’s grey zone of hidden realities, unspoken truths and linguistic evasions. Had they grown up here, they might have been more alert to the way we do things here, our charming insistence on wrapping even matters of life and death in convoluted equivocations and rich ambiguities. But even then they could scarcely have imagined that one society’s self-regarding games could have such barbaric consequences.

Linky.

expectationlost

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/prochoice-activists-got-tipoff-on-tragic-death-3296844.html

in an email response to the Sunday Independent, the ICN said: "Members of the Indian community got in touch with pro-choice groups following Savita's death."

mystery over

strangley the email group the messages were on is public

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!forum/icnplanning
yet AndrewF posts LIST CONSIDER COMPROMISED
derp!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

Agreed, but that's the priority of EU law and national law, not the national constitution which describes and guarantees the rights of the nation's citizens and how these may or may not be amended by the various EU treaties. Judge Hederman put it well in the Crotty judgment of 1987:

I don't think we're actually disagreeing on anything. Absolutely, the reason that we've needed a referendum on each new EU Treaty is precisely because it will be taking precedence over the Constitution, so we need to amend the Constitution to allow that to occur. Once that's done, if there was some ambiguity between something in a valid EU Directive and the Irish Constitution, the Directive would trump the Constitution. It couldn't work any other way - you couldn't harmonise law across the EU if each Member State was in a position to second guess agreed measures.

However, this is all just background. The pertinent point is simply that the EU has no competence with respect to abortion, and the case remarked on as finding that Ireland needs to clarify its abortion laws was a case of the European Court of Human Rights, which is not an EU institution.

recedite

ShooterSF wrote: »

So can people explain to me why, if supreme court rulings are good enough replacements to law

They are not replacements for law, they are law. Whenever a new precedent is set in case law, it supercedes all previous interpretations of "the law". The interpretation of the Supreme Court is considered the superior interpretation. If politicians want to change it, they bring in new legislation, which then gets interpreted by the courts....

robindch wrote: »

Agreed, but that's the priority of EU law and national law, not the national constitution which describes and guarantees the rights of the nation's citizens and how these may or may not be amended by the various EU treaties. Judge Hederman put it well in the Crotty judgment of 1987:

1987 was along time ago. We gave up legal sovereignty to the EU in one of the treaties since then, can't rerember whether it was Lisbon or Maastricht.
The ultimate sovereignty still lies with the people though, so we could in theory have a referendum to restore the pre-eminence of the constitution and in the process leave the EU ( like that's gonna happen )

drkpower

recedite wrote: »

Assuming it is malpractice, there are two possible reasons for this malpractice;
1. Doc failing the patient due to medical incompetence.
2. Doc failing the patient while trying to uphold a particular "ethos."

I'm not sure that malpractice is a safe assumption. Mind you, without knowledge of the actual facts, no assumption can be a safe one in this case. It may have been malpractice; it may be that the doctors were prevented from intervening earlier (before the loss of the heartbeat) as the risk to the mother's life was less than substantial.

We really dont know until the facts are established.

recedite wrote: »

My gut feeling is that if she had attended the Rotunda hospital, which operates under the same laws but a different religious ethos, she would still be alive today. I have no proof of that, nor will any proof emerge in the inquiry, one way or the other.

Im not sure that UCHG has any greater religious ethos than the Rotunda, or any less.

recedite

A "candlelit vigil" has distinct religious connotations; I would be reluctant to say that all the participants were on a pro-choice rally, or asking for abortion on demand. A more reasonable interpretation is that they all deplore the way Savita died, and favour abortion in circumstances where the mothers life is in imminent and grave danger, and the baby is already dying. After that, they may not agree on much.
Yet we already have case- law that is much more liberal than that from the x case. We also have the common dilate and curettage (D&C) procedure, which is often used as a euphemism for, or method of, early abortion.

Another thing, why do people assume that the Dail should legislate for the x -case? That was just the court doing its best to interpret an implied right from the constitution. The courts have no role in saying what the legislation should be, they just interpret and administer it. The Dail should legislate for the will of the people, as expressed by referendum. But the two referendums since the x case were rejected, so the people have only said what they don't want.
They apparently don't want the start of human life defined as "the moment of implantation" which would have made the morning after pill "not an abortion".
What does that tell us?
They don't want legislation "to legalise abortion where the mothers life is threatened, excluding the risk of suicide".
What does that tell us? Do they want abortion or not?

The consensus is, that the 2002 referendum was voted down by a combination of people who wanted abortion-on-demand, people who wanted no abortion at all, and just a few in between. And even then, at 49.6% to 50.4% it hardly constituted "the will of the people" in any meaningful way.

If the govt. don't ask the right questions, they don't get the right answers.
When they do get the answers, then they can draft the legislation.

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Absolutely, the reason that we've needed a referendum on each new EU Treaty is precisely because it will be taking precedence over the Constitution, so we need to amend the Constitution to allow that to occur. Once that's done, if there was some ambiguity between something in a valid EU Directive and the Irish Constitution, the Directive would trump the Constitution.

Again, no. The constitutional amendment is made so that nobody can take a constitutional case against the state, in the Supreme Court, alleging that their rights, under the constitution, have been infringed.

Personally, I think it should be up to a plaintiff to demonstrate that their rights have been infringed, rather than the Constitution to imply, via an amendment, that they haven't -- it seems a clearer and more basic distinction to me.

However, the SC disagrees and who am I, as a lowly engineer, to disagree?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The pertinent point is simply that the EU has no competence with respect to abortion [...].

Yes, and that point was explicitly agreed -- despite its being outside the remit of the EU -- within the Maastrict Treaty as follows:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/11992M/htm/11992M.html#0094000019

Maastricht Treaty wrote:

Nothing in the Treaty on European Union, or in the Treaties establishing the European Communities, or in the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3. of the Constitution of Ireland.

As above, the Irish Constitution defines the rights of Irish Citizens and the EU Treaties come second.

recedite

drkpower wrote: »

it may be that the doctors were prevented from intervening earlier (before the loss of the heartbeat) as the risk to the mother's life was less than substantial.

If the story that she was gravely ill for a few days and died of septicaemia is correct, then the threat to her life was real enough.

drkpower wrote: »

Im not sure that UCHG has any greater religious ethos than the Rotunda, or any less.

Maybe not greater, but different. The Rotunda have had some run-ins with the RCC in the past after recommending contraception to patients, performing sterilisations, and having a different emphasis on some other procedures. Historically they were known as "a protestant hospital".

drkpower

recedite wrote: »

If the story that she was gravely ill for a few days and died of septicaemia is correct, then the threat to her life was real enough.

First, the story as reported does not suggest that she was 'gravely' ill for a few days, at least not during the days prior to the removal of the foetus.

Second, what does the threat being 'real enough' mean? The threat must be a substantial risk to the mother's life. And what does that mean? The answer is that noone truly knows; it is one line in a Supreme Court judgment; the SC did not elaborate on it; there are no legal, medical or ethical guidelines as to what it means. So your assertion that the risk was 'real enough' isnt really worth much.

recedite wrote: »

Maybe not greater, but different. The Rotunda have had some run-ins with the RCC in the past after recommending contraception to patients, performing sterilisations, and having a different emphasis on some other procedures. Historically they were known as "a protestant hospital".

The historical vagaries of the various hospitals, with a few exceptions, really have little to do with how medical care is provided in practice. But, in any case, the 'ethos of the Hospital' issue appears to be an irrelevancy in this debate (subject to the full facts emerging).

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Another thing, why do people assume that the Dail should legislate for the x -case? That was just the court doing its best to interpret an implied right from the constitution.

In broad terms, the Courts interpret legislation from the legislature while the Supreme Court determines whether the rights of an individual or corporation, as defined by the Constitution, have been infringed either by the courts, or by legislation.

The courts have no option but to revert to precedent and the 1861 legislation which is what I gather legislates for abortion in the absence of anything more up to date. Hence a medic's choices are viewed, by the Attorney General and his/her minions who initiate prosecutions, only within the remit of the laws of 150 years ago.

recedite

They led her to the very brink of death before they acted.
I can only think of three possible reasons for that; medical incompetence, ignorance of the law, or trying to uphold a particular ethos.

drkpower

recedite wrote: »

They led her to the very brink of death before they acted.
I can only think of three possible reasons for that; medical incompetence, ignorance of the law, or trying to uphold a particular ethos.

I wouldnt argue with those three possibilities (although i think the last one is quite unlikely, and would be properly considered to be medical negligence). There is also the possibility that the medic acted entirely correctly and she was an unfortunate victim of an especially aggressive microroganism.

However i think where we differ is the reason for the possible cause: ignorance of the law.

I suspect you believe the doctors may have been at fault for being ignorant of the law; what I suggest, and what is entirely factual, is that any potential ignorance of the law on the part of the doctors was not their fault. Because the fact is that noone truly knows what the law is, for the reasons I have already outlined. That has been the problem for 20 years, and continues to be the problem.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

Again, no. The constitutional amendment is made so that nobody can take a constitutional case against the state, in the Supreme Court, alleging that their rights, under the constitution, have been infringed.

I don't know, especially, what the point of disagreement is.

If a Directive hasn't been transposed into Member State law then, indeed, it has no direct effect. In that situation, the Commission will pursue the Member State for non-compliance, but not any individual Irish person. We might take the septic tank issue as an example of that kind of thing.

But ultimately the EU legislation is binding on Ireland, and trumps any Member State law. Including the Constitution.

But none of that matters here, as there's no crossover.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

The courts have no option but to revert to precedent and the 1861 legislation

Yes, but the precedent is more modern and set by the supreme court. So in those particular circumstances (threat to the mothers life) there is an exception to the 1861 Act.

Let me explain how this came about; Constitution always trumps legislation. No legislation is allowed to be "repugnant" to the Constitution.
The right to life is enshrined in the Constitution, for everybody (not just a pregnant woman)
So the situation now is that the mothers right to life trumps the 1861 act.
The x case expanded that threat to include suicide, a self inflicted threat to her life.

recedite

drkpower wrote: »

the fact is that noone truly knows what the law is, for the reasons I have already outlined. That has been the problem for 20 years, and continues to be the problem.

I agree it is confusing for average the man in the street. But hospitals have legal departments. They make policies and they should know where they stand in relation to the law. Doctors receive training in law and ethics at medical school. They know what happens when they overstep the mark.

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But ultimately the EU legislation is binding on Ireland, and trumps any Member State law. Including the Constitution.

As above on several occasions, the Constitution defines rights, not law or precedent and the Constitution is the ultimate authority for a citizens rights and trumps EU law.

Seems that people are conflating Constitutionally-derived rights and legislation (both from the EU and the national legislature).

drkpower

recedite wrote: »

I agree it is confusing for average the man in the street. But hospitals have legal departments. They make policies and they should know where they stand in relation to the law. Doctors receive training in law and ethics at medical school. They know what happens when they overstep the mark.

Most Hospitals dont have legal departments for a start.

And even if they had, or if they had rang their external lawyers, a medico-legal lawyer cannot confidently tell you what a 'substantial threat to life' is. And I speak as a medico-legal lawyer. That is because, other than a line in one SC judgment, noone has elaborated on the meaning.

You seem to be under the impression that this assessment is a straightforward one for a doctor to make; i can you definitively it is not (with or without legal advice). It is incredibly difficult; and the decision is in charged high stakes circumstances, with grave outcome for the patient, and possibly the doctor, no matter which way they act.

recedite

The EU does not (yet) have "competence" in contentious areas like taxation and abortion, so it cannot make directives in those areas.
In the areas where it does have competence, such as the environment, it trumps all our national laws, because we agreed to that in Maastricht. Up till now there hasn't much crossover between our Constitution and EU directives, but if there is a conflict our Constitution has to be changed.
Another way of looking at this is to say we are not free to amend the Constitution in any way that conflicts with EU law.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

The EU does not (yet) have "competence" in contentious areas like taxation and abortion, so it cannot make directives in those areas. In the areas where it does have competence, such as the environment, it trumps all our national laws, because we agreed to that in Maastricht

Uh, yes. I've said or implied that several times.

recedite wrote: »

Another way of looking at this is to say we are not free to amend the Constitution in any way that conflicts with EU law.

Ok, perhaps that's a simpler way of looking at the issue, but while it's politically true, I'm not sure that it's legally true -- could you point me to the Treaty document which documents this political understanding in legal terms?

recedite

drkpower wrote: »

Most Hospitals dont have legal departments for a start.

Connolly
Beaumont
Maybe the Galway University Hospital doesn't need a legal department?

drkpower wrote: »

with grave outcome for the patient, and possibly the doctor, no matter which way they act.

Come off it, she was screaming in agony. Who is going to prosecute? Do you think the DPP is going to charge in and say Wait, her life is not yet endangered?
And you're a lawyer, but one line of text is not enough for you? How many lines do you need? You do realise that the Constitution is mostly one liners?

drkpower

recedite wrote: »

Connolly
Beaumont
Maybe the Galway University Hospital doesn't need a legal department?

I dont think you will find a lawyer in any of those departments. and in any case, you didnt answer the substantive point that a medico-legal lawyer cannot tell you definitively what precisely a 'substanital threat to life' means.

recedite wrote: »

Come off it, she was screaming in agony. Who is going to prosecute? Do you think the DPP is going to charge in and say Wait, her life is not yet endangered?

Whether she was screaming in agony or not does not tell a doctor if there is a 'substanital threat to life'.

recedite wrote: »

And you're a lawyer, but one line of text is not enough for you? How many lines do you need? You do realise that the Constitution is mostly one liners?

And most/many 'one-liner' consitutional rights are elaborated upon in legislation (equality, property rights, even blasphemy (....!...)

And to answer your question, in order to deal with all of the potential circumstances where a complication of pregnancy may pose a 'substanital threat to life', I would need many many lines. Just as in thousands of other areas of medical practice where guidelines, some extending to hundreds of lines, further elaborate on medical practice, and in some cases how that practice is affected by the law.

These are not straightforward issues; if you believe they are, that just demonstrates that you dont understand them.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure that it's legally true -- could you point me to the Treaty document which documents this political understanding in legal terms?

The Lisbon Treaty refers to it, but it had been the positiion before this

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12007L/htm/C2007306EN.01025602.htm

Just think about. It couldn't work any other way; you couldn't have a Member State agreeing a Directive and then saying "Oops, sorry that conflict with our Constitution, sorry about that."

In passing, the EU does have competence in taxation. It just requires unanimity. But our special tax regimes in the IFSC and Shannon Airport had to go because they conflicted with EU State Aid rules.

Didn't take us long to get bored of talking about abortion. I suppose there's no hope that we've started a trend.

Incidently, I'm organising a secular, cosmopolitan candlelit Novena tonight on Kildare Street to demand Ella's re-instatement on X-Factor.

Sierra 117

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Incidently, I'm organising a secular, cosmopolitan candlelit Novena tonight on Kildare Street to demand Ella's re-instatement on X-Factor.

Good luck with that.

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty refers to it, but it had been the positiion before this

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12007L/htm/C2007306EN.01025602.htm

Look, GCU, I can't really say it again, but here's a post from an hour or so ago -- state law and the Constitution are different things:

As above on several occasions, the Constitution defines rights, not law or precedent and the Constitution is the ultimate authority for a citizens rights and trumps EU law.

Seems that people are conflating Constitutionally-derived rights and legislation (both from the EU and the national legislature).

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

Look, GCU, I can't really say it again, but here's a post from an hour or so ago -- state law and the Constitution are different things:

As above on several occasions, the Constitution defines rights, not law or precedent and the Constitution is the ultimate authority for a citizens rights and trumps EU law.

Seems that people are conflating Constitutionally-derived rights and legislation (both from the EU and the national legislature).

Grand, but if what you are asserting is that an Irish citizen could have some obligation based on a valid EU Directive struck down by an Irish Court on the grounds that it infringed Bunreacht Na hEireann, you're just wrong.

Put another way, if there was an EU Regulation that specified a right to abortion, it would apply in Ireland regardless of any provision in our Constitution (apart from the provision giving effect to the EU Treaties.) But this is a purely theoretical proposition, as the EU has no competence in that area.

On the other hand, the EU could most certainly stop us from re-introducing a special tax regime in the IFSC or Shannon Airport unless it was consistent with EU State Aid rules.

Kiwi in IE

BraveInca wrote: »

Dunno what the Catholics folks are so worried about. Surely God will look after all the murdered babies. "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." as they said in the Cathar wars and since.

No he won't. They won't be baptised so will be sent to purgatory.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

They led her to the very brink of death before they acted.
I can only think of three possible reasons for that; medical incompetence, ignorance of the law, or trying to uphold a particular ethos.

So you maintain they could have acted sooner if only they'd not been ignorant of the law - which law?
The 1861 act is almost certainly unconstitutional, but unless and until it is struck down by the Supreme Court following a challenge, it remains the law of the land and its penalties, up to and including life imprisonment still apply, for any act causing the termination of a pregnancy.

I don't belive that medical incompetence is a sufficient explanation - they must have known that not removing the foetus put the mother's health at increased risk.

I don't believe that that horrible vague term 'ethos' could have influenced doctors to do something they wouldn't have otherwise done, if they believed it not to be in the best interest of their patient.

So we are left with the legal vacuum as the only explanation.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

ninja900 wrote: »

I don't belive that medical incompetence is a sufficient explanation - they must have known that not removing the foetus put the mother's health at increased risk.

We don't have enough information to assess what is and isn't sufficient explanation. There needs to be more detail (which presumably investigations will establish) as to what diagnosis was made on admission, what treatment and monitoring was carried out, and so forth.

But, just to touch on the general point, bear in mind that our Constitution is taken to mean that there has to be a substantial threat to the life of the mother, and not merely her health, before abortion is permitted.

If we want to change that balance, and make it so a threat to health matters, a referendum will be necessary. All laws will be able to do is clarify that a risk to the mother's health, as distinct from life, doesn't count.

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand, but if what you are asserting is that an Irish citizen could have some obligation based on a valid EU Directive struck down by an Irish Court on the grounds that it infringed Bunreacht Na hEireann, you're just wrong.

As above, I disagree

What legal document -- I assume a Treaty -- says that the Irish Constitution is trumped by the EU?