Protection of Life in Pregnancy: heads of bill published

Macha

jank wrote: »

What is FF's position on this, they have been very quiet on this issue as of late.Was it mentioned in the Ard Feis?

The legislation is to be welcomed as it clears the air on what a doctor can and cannot do in case of an emergency.

They passed 3 pro-life motions opposing any liberalisation of abortion laws in Ireland, including legislating for the X case.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0427/386860-fianna-fail-ard-fheis/

jank wrote: »

Those who want abortion on demand, well this is not possible without a referendum. This legislation is in line with the x-case only, not some sweeping reform that makes abortion legal for all which was never on the cards. Looking at the polls I dont think Irish people want an abortion regime like they have in the UK. Will probably happen at some stage mind, then we can look forward to having this debate again!!

It is definitely true that we would need a referendum. This is what advocacy groups like TFMR (Terminations for Medical Reasons) are now calling for a referendum to repeal the 8th amendment:

https://www.facebook.com/ReferendumOnThe8thAmendmentNow?hc_location=stream

Here is a summary of some recent opinion polls on abortion in Ireland:

http://www.ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Abortion/Public-Opinion

jank

JRant wrote: »

Why don't we start acting like a civilised country and deal with the abortion issue ourselves? Instead of exporting our 'dirty little secret' across the Irish sea. .

Some would argue that a civilised country protects life. Its not as black and white as that.

JRant wrote: »

Anyway adoption is not the one stop shop that many seem to view it as either.

Never said it would but if either side of the argument spent around 10% of its time on the adoption option then there would be favourable outcome for many imo.

wolfpawnat

Like with abortion, there is a stigma with adoption too. "Oh you wouldn't keep it, you're just going to give it to strangers" judgement. I think for many the issue is stigma more than anything. I'd say we have no real way of knowing how many Irish women have had abortions. Many don't give Irish addresses or go to other EU areas other than Britain.

Zubeneschamali

jank wrote: »

Some would argue that a civilised country protects life.

That's what the Attorney General set out to do in the X case, and everyone was appalled, and we passed two amendments by referendum and rejected a third to stop him doing it again.

We don't want abortion to be legal here, but we don't want to stop anyone getting abortion information, or travelling to the UK for an abortion.

So it's a classic Irish "Not under my roof" issue.

jank

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's what the Attorney General set out to do in the X case, and everyone was appalled, and we passed two amendments by referendum and rejected a third to stop him doing it again.

We don't want abortion to be legal here, but we don't want to stop anyone getting abortion information, or travelling to the UK for an abortion.

So it's a classic Irish "Not under my roof" issue.

You may be shocked to know that Ireland does not have a monopoly in regards this thought process.

Zubeneschamali

jank wrote: »

You may be shocked to know that Ireland does not have a monopoly in regards this thought process.

And would you say that the countries who export their abortions like this are somehow more civilized than countries who allow them to be performed in their jurisdiction?

I certainly don't think adding a layer of hypocrisy, expense and pointless hoop-jumping to our abortion-on-demand system makes us more civilized.

Sierra Oscar

jank wrote: »

What is FF's position on this, they have been very quiet on this issue as of late.Was it mentioned in the Ard Feis?

The Parliamentary Party is holding a meeting today to decide as to whether the party will support the legislation or not. Everything is being considered very carefully, and I think it is wise to not rush any decisions.

The Ard Fheis passed motions reaffirming the party as a pro-life party, but that does not mean that the PP cannot support the legislation. A TD must represent his or her constituency, and cannot put party before country. TD's have a duty to protect the constitution, and the courts of this land have deemed that the risk of suicide are sufficient grounds to allow an abortion. Two referendums have been held to try and overturn that decision, and the people have spoken by striking down both referendums. The only option now is to legislate in my view, so I hope the PP do the right thing. I think it would be a mistake not to, but all the same considering the AF vote it would not surprise me if the PP come out against this.

Macha

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The Parliamentary Party is holding a meeting today to decide as to whether the party will support the legislation or not. Everything is being considered very carefully, and I think it is wise to not rush any decisions.

The Ard Fheis passed motions reaffirming the party as a pro-life party, but that does not mean that the PP cannot support the legislation. A TD must represent his or her constituency, and cannot put party before country. TD's have a duty to protect the constitution, and the courts of this land have deemed that the risk of suicide are sufficient grounds to allow an abortion. Two referendums have been held to try and overturn that decision, and the people have spoken by striking down both referendums. The only option now is to legislate in my view, so I hope the PP do the right thing. I think it would be a mistake not to, but all the same considering the AF vote it would not surprise me if the PP come out against this.

Interesting. I thought members of the parliamentary party were obliged to be in line with party policy, especially when in opposition and not in a coalition. And especially when that policy was adopted so recently.

Edit: I've just realised this probably varies between political parties.

Cody Pomeray

Nodin wrote: »

The structure of that legislation is entirely down to them.

I'm afraid you're mistaken.

The structure of the legislation is not "entirely" down to the Government.

The Government is constrained by the Constitution and by Constitutional case law especially in respect of the X Case.

The final X Case judgement makes specific findings which affirms constitutional protection for the unborn, whereby it must be "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".

Since the X case hinged only on the opinion of one clinical psychologist, not even a medical practitioner, I have no doubt but a similar test of suicidal intent would be constitutionally acceptable under the proposed legislation. Therefore, the 3 doctors scenario would appear to be ideological or political on behalf of the Government.

However, speaking broadly, the fact remains that the test for access to an Irish termination must logically be one that is more rigorous to the one that currently applies in the UK, where "only" the health of the mother must be at risk.

In light of the 8th amendment, "Real and substantial risk" to maternal life is always going to be the test. Given that, or until that amendment is torn out and chewed up and spat out (as it should be) most women are always going to opt for the plane to England.

Nodin

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I'm afraid you're (..........)England.

I'd suggest that you're making that up as you go, given that you're agreeing with me and contradicting yourself there. They're obligated to legislate for abortion where theres a threat of suicide. Obviously there'd have to be some check in that regard, but its extent is entirely up to the Government.

Cody Pomeray

Nodin wrote: »

I'd suggest that you're making that up as you go, given that you're agreeing with me and contradicting yourself there. They're obligated to legislate for abortion where theres a threat of suicide. Obviously there'd have to be some check in that regard, but its extent is entirely up to the Government.

Ok you're just missing the point at this stage.

I'm not denying that the 3 doctors rule seems superfluous to constitutional requirements.

The point, however:

Given that the Constitutional position, enshrined in the 8th amendment (Article 40.3.3) is that the test must be, and I quote "...a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother", then the test applied will inevitably he far more stringent than that required in the UK, where a woman only has to claim an adverse risk to her health.

Therefore, short of a referendum which demolishes Article 40.3.3. of the Constitution, there will always be a more rigorous process to undertake in order to secure an Irish termination.

Most women will simply take the plane - regardless of the 3 doctor rule.

rodento

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How would anyone know that?

Because it happens

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Body-found-in-Irish-Sea-of-mum-due-to-give-birth-to-twins-142042383.html

Richard Bingham

rodento wrote: »

Because it happens

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Body-found-in-Irish-Sea-of-mum-due-to-give-birth-to-twins-142042383.html

It's interesting that you posted a link to that story. There is an account of some of the evidence given at the Coroners inquest into that ladys death here http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/i-love-you-annas-last-words-28903436.html

Six days before her death, Mrs Byrne and her husband attended an appointment with consultant psychiatrist at the Rotunda, Dr John Sheehan. She told him that she felt "part of her life was missing" because she had no daughter.

"She said that she planned the current pregnancy hoping for a baby daughter but found out at 20 weeks she was having twins and that they were both boys. She said that she was devastated," he said.

Her mood was low, particularly in the evening, and she described a loss of interest and not feeling "maternal".

She told him she felt overwhelmed by the prospect of having four boys but did not express any intention to take her own life, he said.

This raises a question in the context of the current debate - if the proposed legislation had been introduced a couple of years ago and if Anna Byrne had sought an abortion due to her suicidality, which according to the evidence was because of the sex of her unborn babies, would it have been granted under this legislation?