woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Daith

RobertKK wrote: »

This whole thing happened under the law which pro-choice were fighting for: legislate for X....

We got X case legislation and it is possibility even more controversial than what we had before.

The new legislation wasn't used in this case. The actual argument is why wasn't it used.

Pro choice people want a referendum around the 8th amendment.

Phoebas

Daith wrote: »

The new legislation wasn't used in this case.

Yes it was.

rte wrote:

Her case was assessed under the legislation which was passed last summer and came into effect at the start of the year.

Calina

Daith wrote: »

The new legislation wasn't used in this case. The actual argument is why wasn't it used.

Pro choice people want a referendum around the 8th amendment.

Strictly speaking, it was, but not until she was ca 20+ weeks pregnant. The question is why there was a gap between her requesting the abortion at 8 weeks and the process being implemented.

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

Yes it was.

How?

Calina wrote: »

Strictly speaking, it was, but not until she was ca 20+ weeks pregnant. The question is why there was a gap between her requesting the abortion at 8 weeks and the process being implemented.

Sorry this is what I mean. The gap between the two and why it wasn't used when she was 8 weeks.

Akrasia

RobertKK wrote: »

This whole thing happened under the law which pro-choice were fighting for: legislate for X....

We got X case legislation and it is possibility even more controversial than what we had before.

The 2013 legislation is anything but pro-choice. it is the exact opposite. Nobody chooses to be suicidal, nobody chooses to have their life in danger as the result of a pregnancy.

The 2013 law should have introduced some protections for pregnant women who were in mortal danger from the pregnancy, however, the government ballsed it up big time by pandering to the religious lobby and introducing ridiculous beaurocracy as a safeguard against the paranoid fear of the religious right that millions of women would fake suicidal ideation in order to get 'abortion on demand'

Phoebas

Calina wrote: »

Strictly speaking, it was, but not until she was ca 20+ weeks pregnant. The question is why there was a gap between her requesting the abortion at 8 weeks and the process being implemented.

As I understand it she didn't make any claim to be suicidal to the HSE until c. 20 weeks.
The IFPA who saw her from 8 weeks told her that she wasn't entitled to an abortion and the suicidal ideation occurred when she realised that she wasn't going to be able to travel abroad (I think around 16 weeks).

pwurple

This flipping country. I wish to goodness we weren't wrapped up in judging who is more or less deserving of an abortion.

What should be happening is that a woman requests one from her gp, who knows her well. She gets some counselling and advice and it goes ahead if she still wants it.

Up to some gestational limit.

After that, it's wait a few weeks and induce or section the living baby.

Everyone gets proper pre-care and aftercare, physical and psychiatric.

Where it gets messed up us the electorate trying to decide that it has to be in a certain set of circumstances. It's impossible to describe every set of allowable circumstances. Just let it be on demand up to a gestational limit, with plenty of counselling.

RobertKK

Akrasia wrote: »

The 2013 legislation is anything but pro-choice. it is the exact opposite. Nobody chooses to be suicidal, nobody chooses to have their life in danger as the result of a pregnancy.

The 2013 law should have introduced some protections for pregnant women who were in mortal danger from the pregnancy, however, the government ballsed it up big time by pandering to the religious lobby and introducing ridiculous beaurocracy as a safeguard against the paranoid fear of the religious right that millions of women would fake suicidal ideation in order to get 'abortion on demand'

The law already gave due concern to the mother where her life was in danger due to medical health reasons.

eeepaulo

In this particular case it is all about what was said and when, we dont know yet.

This link has a timeline not very much detail though

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/abortion-case-timeline-of-events-30517734.html

eeepaulo

RobertKK wrote: »

The law already gave due concern to the mother where her life was in danger due to medical health reasons.

How did that work out for Savita Halappanavar?

I believe she was told 'sorry dear this is a catholic country'

pwurple

Why are people saying the woman was forcefed and forced to have c section.

She was hydrated (put on a drip) and she consented to c section.

How else was the pregnancy to end at that stage? An abortion inducement procedure would have resulted in a slow painfull labour, followed by giving birth.

That poor, poor woman. I've just read the article now.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/they-said-they-could-not-do-an-abortion-i-said-you-can-leave-me-now-to-die-i-don-t-want-to-live-in-this-world-anymore-1.1901258?page=1


“They said it is okay because I was eight weeks and four days. After that day I hoped they were going to help me. I was shown documents that were filled in, and I understood that the process was under way.”

Over the following weeks, she says, she had a number of meetings at the IFPA and though the process seemed to be in train she was told some weeks later that the estimated cost of travelling to England, having the abortion and possible overnight accommodation could be over €1,500. An individual in the IFPA, she says, told her the State would not fund the costs.

“I said we’re getting too far, and she said, no, in England they carry out abortions up to 28 weeks . . . She said ‘that is not the problem. The problem is the money’. This was the final thing for me. I cried.

She says that by then she had decided to kill herself.

That night she returned to the place where she lived and attempted to take her own life but was interrupted.

...
...


Asked if she has any friend to talk to about her situation, the young woman says she has not.

“No, I didn’t want people to know . . . For me this was shameful. In our culture if a girl gives birth to a child before marriage everything is finished. No one can respect you. As well as that, for me, with the rape, it was difficult.”

Her stomach is still sore, and “the scar will never go away”, she say, adding “it will always be a reminder”.

“Sometimes, when I feel the pain . . . I feel I have been left by everybody . . . I just wanted justice to be done. For me this is injustice.”

conorhal

bluewolf wrote: »

That poor, poor woman. I've just read the article now.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/they-said-they-could-not-do-an-abortion-i-said-you-can-leave-me-now-to-die-i-don-t-want-to-live-in-this-world-anymore-1.1901258?page=1


“They said it is okay because I was eight weeks and four days. After that day I hoped they were going to help me. I was shown documents that were filled in, and I understood that the process was under way.”

Over the following weeks, she says, she had a number of meetings at the IFPA and though the process seemed to be in train she was told some weeks later that the estimated cost of travelling to England, having the abortion and possible overnight accommodation could be over €1,500. An individual in the IFPA, she says, told her the State would not fund the costs.

“I said we’re getting too far, and she said, no, in England they carry out abortions up to 28 weeks . . . She said ‘that is not the problem. The problem is the money’. This was the final thing for me. I cried.

She says that by then she had decided to kill herself.

That night she returned to the place where she lived and attempted to take her own life but was interrupted.

...
...


Asked if she has any friend to talk to about her situation, the young woman says she has not.

“No, I didn’t want people to know . . . For me this was shameful. In our culture if a girl gives birth to a child before marriage everything is finished. No one can respect you. As well as that, for me, with the rape, it was difficult.”

Her stomach is still sore, and “the scar will never go away”, she say, adding “it will always be a reminder”.

“Sometimes, when I feel the pain . . . I feel I have been left by everybody . . . I just wanted justice to be done. For me this is injustice.”

Shoddy, shoddy journalism.
I suspect that there is a lot more to this story then the agenda driven Irish Times and it's uncritical and unquestioning approach to this interview suggests.
For starters, an actual journalist would have investigated a few facts before rushing out to print the interview, Why, when the HSE has procured UK abortions for such women in the past (20 in the last few years) did it not happen in this case? The girl says cost, but then the article cites 'visa problems'. There's something fishy there.

No staff or fellow Asylum seekers interviewed to verify the facts of the story. If you worked solely on the word of Pamela Izevbekhai without any critical investigation of the facts, she would still be feted as 'heroic', as she was in the Times before she was exposed.
Was this girl raped or did she merely present here pregnant, didn't want the child and thought that tales of rape might enhance her case? No doubt you'll call BS, but then who would make up a dead child and threats of FGM to her own children as Pamela did? It’s already been said that the government, after this interview, intend to look favourably at her case.

Did things become an escalation of a lie in a standoff with over reacting authorities? Did she genuinely attempt suicide or stage it? Was she told that you had to be suicidal to have an abortion before her failed suicide attempt? You can never underestimate how manipulative some people can be.
Now I'm not saying that it didn't necessarily happen as reported but I simply don't trust an Irish Times journalist with an agenda and an interviewee with an agenda to accurately or critically report this story, given what a tinder box this case has the potential to be, a cool head and some fact checking was the basic journalistic standard I’d expect to have occurred, but that doesn’t seem to have.

While it may be that there may be a court order in place against publishing details, that hasn't stopped the times selectively reporting on the case and publishing an uncorroborated interview with the girl in question, in much the same way that it was convenient for the paper to report that Savita Halapanavar died because she’s couldn't have an abortion and not a word, or at least minimal mention of (and only till much later), the utter medical negligence on the part of an on call doctor that was the actual reason that she died.
I just can’t help but suspect that once again the Times is pushing an agenda with soft focus ‘feels’ and being either circumspect or wilfully ignorant of the facts and there is more to this story then meets the eye.

B0jangles

So you are also calling her a liar?

conorhal

B0jangles wrote: »

So you are also calling her a liar?

I'm waiting for the facts to properly examined. Which they have not been. The Times has form for bending them to suit this political political agenda.

efb

So I was Correct the pregnancy was terminated within the parameters of the Act- by C section.

The act does not specify abortion as the only means of termination and due regard to the life of the unborn has to be taken into account

http://m.rte.ie/news/touch/2014/0819/638049-abortion-legislation/

geret

bluewolf wrote: »

That poor, poor woman. I've just read the article now.







Asked if she has any friend to talk to about her situation, the young woman says she has not.

“No, I didn’t want people to know . . . For me this was shameful. In our culture if a girl gives birth to a child before marriage everything is finished. No one can respect you. As well as that, for me, with the rape, it was difficult.”
i]

but
.

She also made contact with a family friend here who said he would help her. He advised her to go to a GP and tell them she was suicidal because of the pregnancy.

a few other inconsistencies in the article.

from my understanding of that "article" her friend advised her to do this at 16 weeks

link it article bluewolf posted

kylith

geret wrote: »

but
.


a few other inconsistencies in the article.

from my understanding of that "article" her friend advised her to do this at 16 weeks

link it article bluewolf posted

I don't think that's an inconsistency. I have friends of the family who would advise me to go see a doctor if I had medical issues, it wouldn't mean that I'd consider them a friend that I could talk to about it, particularly if I knew that their cultural background meant that they would have a problem with it.

seamus

conorhal wrote: »

Shoddy, shoddy journalism.
I suspect that there is a lot more to this story then the agenda driven Irish Times and it's uncritical and unquestioning approach to this interview suggests.

Have you actually read the article, or are you assuming that it's heavily biased or slanted?

It's actually pretty even, there's very little speculation and what's a quote from the girl and what's a fact is clearly laid out. There's no appeal to emotion and little or no opinion from the author.

Why, when the HSE has procured UK abortions for such women in the past (20 in the last few years) did it not happen in this case? The girl says cost, but then the article cites 'visa problems'. There's something fishy there.

It was the IFPA who said that typically "this cohort" of women (i.e. asylum seekers) typically encounter visa problems when trying to travel for an abortion. There's no mention that this girl specifically had any visa problems.

It's also important to note that it wasn't the HSE who discussed sending her abroad for an abortion. She was referred to the IFPA, who are permitted under the constitution to provide her with all of the information and assistance on travelling abroad, but are not permitted to fund her trip.

Clearly this exposes some unspoken procedure in the HSE where women who wish to procure an abortion are referred to the IFPA to organise a trip to the UK. As an aside, that exposes our shameful hypocrisy as a nation where we effectively provide abortions for women through our national health service, but so long as we don't fund it or do it on our land, our politicians can claim that we're an abortion-free country and please the bishops.

No staff or fellow Asylum seekers interviewed to verify the facts of the story. If you worked solely on the word of Pamela Izevbekhai without any critical investigation of the facts, she would still be feted as 'heroic', as she was in the Times before she was exposed.
As I said, I suspect the facts of the case are less then black and white.
Was this girl raped or did she merely present here pregnant, didn't want the child and thought that tales of rape might enhance her case? No doubt you'll call BS, but then who would make up a dead child and threats of FGM to her own children as Pamela did?

What bearing does Pamela's case have on this one? None. One asylum seeker being a scammer, doesn't cast a doubt on all of them, however much some people would like to believe. Each case has to be taken on its individual facts.

While it may be that there may be a court order in place against publishing details, that hasn't stopped the times selectively reporting on the case and publishing an uncorroborated interview with the girl in question

Interviews are by definition uncorroborated. I think you're confusing facts with interviews. There is a very big difference between presenting an interview as the facts, and presenting an interview as an interview. The Times clearly does the latter in this case, and if you read between the lines you can see in the structure of the report, the journalist exposes some huge questions:

- At 16 weeks she claims that she was suicidal and attempted suicide but "got interrupted". "Shortly thereafter", she moved and was advised to tell her GP she was suicidal in order to procure an abortion. At that stage she was 24 weeks. What happened in the intervening 8 weeks?
This story was initially presented as HSE incompetence or malice blocking the girl's legal right to get an abortion, yet going by the girl's own words, she didn't present to a doctor as suicidal until she was already 24 weeks pregnant.
At that point, the system actually moved quite quickly, and the pregnancy was terminated within a week or so.

I also questioned her claim of having no friends, though if you look at the wording, you can see that she has no friends that she can talk to about it because she's ashamed of having had a baby out of wedlock.

This is all information that I've gotten from the Times article which you claim to be biased.

If anything, this article weakens the case of the HSE-bashers and the pro-choice lobby because it doesn't actually reveal any failings in the new legislation. When enacted, it seems like the HSE acted swiftly and decisively, within the terms of the act and in the best interests of all involved.

Frito

conorhal wrote: »

Did she genuinely attempt suicide or stage it? Was she told that you had to be suicidal to have an abortion before her failed suicide attempt? You can never underestimate how manipulative some people can be.

Afaik the alleged rape occurred in another country, not sure how this could be satisfactorily investigated.

In terms of suicidal ideation, generally it can only be proved once suicide has been completed and even then there is scope for doubt regarding intention. It was enough for the panel that she threatened to stop eating and drinking.

With respect to the suicide issue; a repeal of the 8th amendment is needed. It's unfair to label her as manipulative for attempting to jump through a state-imposed hoop.

geret

kylith wrote: »

I don't think that's an inconsistency. I have friends of the family who would advise me to go see a doctor if I had medical issues, it wouldn't mean that I'd consider them a friend that I could talk to about it, particularly if I knew that their cultural background meant that they would have a problem with it.

based on the advice they gave her she disclosed to them she was pregnant and didn't want to have it, so she did talk to them about it

would your friend advise you to claim to be suicidal?
was suicide mentioned by the girl before this time?


It's a crap article

Maxie26

All this talk of the rights of the mother and what about the foetus, bunch of cells, baby - whatever pro choice people prefer to call it. Is "it" not entitled to life? What about a pain free abortion? Does "it" receive drugs to help it through the abortion, how do you know it doesnt feel anything, is this baby hated by the pro choice people now that it is born and has survived to spite those who want it dead! What kind of a nation have we become that we are so unfeeling and cruel to the smallest most helpless thing inside its mother, a frightened mother at that, we need to learn to care for all concerned, is that idea incredibly alien to people now, why do we want to hate pro lifers so much when all they want is to save innocent unborn cells, foetus, baby? Does anyone even care how a baby is "terminated", it is not nice, if only pro choicers knew it would make them sick to the stomach, it would be hard to do to an unborn animal, and as a nation we are so eager to fight for animal rights, but not for unborn. Will this child have to grow up in this country feeling hated and unloved by us, because we rather it was aborted before birth, maybe it will live and grow up to be a wonderful human being?

rainbow kirby

Maxie26 wrote: »

and as a nation we are so eager to fight for animal rights, but not for women

Fixed.

Akrasia

geret wrote: »

but
.


a few other inconsistencies in the article.

from my understanding of that "article" her friend advised her to do this at 16 weeks

link it article bluewolf posted

Anomaly hunting is the first stage on the way to a conspiracy theory.

The most important elements of this story are not in question. This young girl arrived into the country and after a medical examination, she was told she was pregnant. The girl asked for an abortion on the grounds that she was raped and she was given the beurocratic runaround for 16 weeks during which time she was assessed by a number of psychiatrists and found to be suicidal because of the pregnancy.

seamus

Akrasia wrote: »

The most important elements of this story are not in question. This young girl arrived into the country and after a medical examination, she was told she was pregnant. The girl asked for an abortion on the grounds that she was raped and she was given the beurocratic runaround for 16 weeks during which time she was assessed by a number of psychiatrists and found to be suicidal because of the pregnancy.

You do say it yourself though. She wanted an abortion on the grounds of being raped, yet unfortunately that is not a legal possibility in Ireland. I agree she probably felt like she was in limbo for the 16 weeks, no doubt confused about the whole thing, about her options, about what she was being told, and so forth.
But by her own words, she didn't present to the HSE as suicidal until 24 weeks.
I think that's the key thing to take from this.

She's the victim of a unnecessarily restrictive law, which for an immigrant new to the country would seem like an impenetrable tangle of legalities. But I'm not entirely sure what could have been done to help her, given the legal restrictions. Had she presented to anyone at 8 or 16 weeks as being suicidal, then it would have been a whole different ball game. Had she told the IFPA that she was suicidal, I'm sure they would have acted.

The legislation appears to work just fine, from a procedural point of view. It does exactly what it's supposed to do. However, what this case exposes is that the very women this legislation is supposed to protect are the ones least likely to understand how to navigate it.

Ralphdejones

A suicidal mother and her child are alive today instead of being dead.
Apparently this is a bad outcome for the pro abortion lobby.

Akrasia

Maxie26 wrote: »

All this talk of the rights of the mother and what about the foetus, bunch of cells, baby - whatever pro choice people prefer to call it. Is "it" not entitled to life? What about a pain free abortion? Does "it" receive drugs to help it through the abortion, how do you know it doesnt feel anything, is this baby hated by the pro choice people now that it is born and has survived to spite those who want it dead! What kind of a nation have we become that we are so unfeeling and cruel to the smallest most helpless thing inside its mother, a frightened mother at that, we need to learn to care for all concerned, is that idea incredibly alien to people now, why do we want to hate pro lifers so much when all they want is to save innocent unborn cells, foetus, baby? Does anyone even care how a baby is "terminated", it is not nice, if only pro choicers knew it would make them sick to the stomach, it would be hard to do to an unborn animal, and as a nation we are so eager to fight for animal rights, but not for unborn. Will this child have to grow up in this country feeling hated and unloved by us, because we rather it was aborted before birth, maybe it will live and grow up to be a wonderful human being?

At 8 weeks the foetus' brain is not attached to it's nervous system and there are no brain waves.
Without brain waves, there is no consciousness, without consciousness, there is no pain. When we want to anesthetize people before surgery, we render them unconscious.
Talking about the pain of a foetus during an abortion shows a concern for the welfare of the unborn child, which is good, but it shows a lack of understanding of the gestation process

On the other hand, pro-life people often object to terminations even where there is a fatal fetal abnormality. if this is your position than your have invalidated any claim to having concern for the welfare of these unborn children or their mothers. Forcing a mother to carry a baby to term only to see the baby gasp for breath for a few short moments before dying in pain is the opposite of what I would consider to be humanitarian concern for the welfare of others.

Akrasia

Ralphdejones wrote: »

A suicidal mother and her child are alive today instead of being dead.
Apparently this is a bad outcome for the pro abortion lobby.

A baby is born due to rape, apparently this is a bad outcome for the anti rape lobby

If the birth of a baby justifies the suffering of the woman, then you must by definition say that the rape was a good thing

Maxie26

So we should just "put down" then, and give no chance, what is wrong with people with this attitude, no one knows for sure if a baby can live or not, or for how long if there is something wrong, can we not love what is not perfect, we all have to suffer sooner or later, does suffering at any age mean putting down, should we do this when our child is gets sick later in life, if my child gets cancer and suffers should i decide to put him or her to sleep so as not to be a bother to me to watch it suffer? come on ... what is your real problem with idea of live and let live? I have heard of parents hugging and cuddling their dying babies in their arms, even knowing they only have hours or minutes to live, would you not want to be their for them in their suffering, as a parent? You would do it if they were born!

Penny Tration

Maxie26 wrote: »

So we should just "put down" then, and give no chance, what is wrong with people with this attitude, no one knows for sure if a baby can live or not, or for how long if there is something wrong, can we not love what is not perfect, we all have to suffer sooner or later, does suffering at any age mean putting down, should we do this when our child is gets sick later in life, if my child gets cancer and suffers should i decide to put him or her to sleep so as not to be a bother to me to watch it suffer? come on ... what is your real problem with idea of live and let live? I have heard of parents hugging and cuddling their dying babies in their arms, even knowing they only have hours or minutes to live, would you not want to be their for them in their suffering, as a parent? You would do it if they were born!

What about some of that compassion and love for the mother?