Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

.. and the Bill that Lazygal linked is actually Claire Dalys Bill from 2013, which Mick Wallaces Bill supposedly mirrors, but we don't know if it's exactly the same...

The last page of the Bill linked by Lazygal says that it was introduced by Mick Wallace, although the date does say "28th November, 2013". Is this his version and they never changed the date, or did Mick Wallace introduce Clare Daly's original Bill? I'm not certain.


-- Edit --

I found this which appears to be Clare Daily's original Bill. The version that Lazygal linked to has (no.2) in the title.

aloyisious

So the content of Mick Wallace's bill 9A (1) is an Amendment of Principle Act meant to slot in behind the existing Risk Of Loss Of Life From Suicide Section 9 (sub-section 5) in Chapter 1 and directly before Chapter 2 of POLDPA.

I can see the opponents of abortion saying that the Wallace amendment gives sweeping powers of decision to doctors as to what a fatal abnormality a fetus may suffer actually is, a la the Life Institute claim of it including trisomy-affected fetus; and not just fetus suffering with anencephaly.

The section 19 certification needed to give medical clearance to proceed could be used as grounds for legal action to stop or counter-claim an alleged illegality, and even grounds for medics to avail of the conscientious objection clause in section 17 of POLDPA.

Something else to consider is what the medical professional bodies here might think on the issue of FFA and assisting the extension of life of an FFA-affected fetus in the womb to full-term while having full medical knowledge that the fetus would die shortly after birth, and how that may play a major part in the medical establishment eventually accepting THE NECESSITY FOR, and legalisation of, abortion here outside the existing bounds of POLDPA and an end to the 8th tying their hands.

My editing started at the upper case lettering and ended at tying their hands.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

The last page of the Bill linked by Lazygal says that it was introduced by Mick Wallace, although the date does say "28th November, 2013". Is this his version and they never changed the date, or did Mick Wallace introduce Clare Daly's original Bill? I'm not certain.
-- Edit --
I found this which appears to be Clare Daily's original Bill. The version that Lazygal linked to has (no.2) in the title.

I stand corrected; it does look like Mick Wallace simply reintroduced Clare Dalys Bill under his own name.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I can see the opponents of abortion saying that the Wallace amendment gives sweeping powers of decision to doctors as to what a fatal abnormality a fetus may suffer actually is, a la the Life Institute claim of it including trisomy-affected fetus; and not just fetus suffering with anencephaly.

I would have thought the qualifying abnormalities would be quite limited; they must be such that are "a medical condition suffered by a foetus such that it is incompatible with life outside the womb". So any condition which would allow a child to be born alive would be excluded, would it not? Personally I think those pro life proponents inclined to oppose the Act are more likely to do so on the basis that it is unConstitutional.

aloyisious wrote: »

The section 19 certification needed to give medical clearance to proceed could be used as grounds for legal action to stop or counter-claim an alleged illegality, and even grounds for medics to avail of the conscientious objection clause in section 17 of POLDPA.

That seems rather unlikely; the certification has to be provided by the two Doctors involved. They're hardly going to agree the procedure is neccasary and then refuse to certify it.

aloyisious wrote: »

Something else to consider is what the medical professional bodies here might think on the issue of FFA and assisting the extension of life of an FFA-affected fetus in the womb to full-term while having full medical knowledge that the fetus would die shortly after birth, and how that may play a major part in the medical establishment eventually accepting the legalisation of abortion here.

. I wouldn't say it needs much consideration though; the medical profession are as likely to accept any possible legalisation of abortion as the general population are, they're part of that body of people after all. Medical professionals always have been and always will be required to do what is in the best interests of their patients within the limits of the law.

aloyisious

From Simon Harris and Dept of Health.... http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/terminations-carried-out-on-26-women-last-year-1.2704509

It might be early days for POLDPA but the figures for terminations under the act have been the same for the last two years of it's operation.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I stand corrected; it does look like Mick Wallace simply reintroduced Clare Dalys Bill under his own name.

You'd hardly expect him to write out a whole new bill, while at the same time preparing for his trip to France in support of the Ireland team.

Cabaal

As we know Texas wanted abortion clinics to have hospital admitting privlages, this would appear to suggest that abortions are unsafe.

But the reality is a women having an abortion has just as much chance dieing while running a marathon or having a dental procedure done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IvGlAXa0wY

volchitsa

aloyisious wrote: »

From Simon Harris and Dept of Health.... http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/terminations-carried-out-on-26-women-last-year-1.2704509

It might be early days for POLDPA but the figures for terminations under the act have been the same for the last two years of it's operation.

But, but, but... That's not possible surely? Didn't those nice Iona people tell us it was all a slippery slope and all women would have to do would be claim to be suicidal and they'd be getting abortions right left and centre! Surely such holy people couldn't possibly have been, like, lying? Could they?

aloyisious

volchitsa wrote: »

But, but, but... That's not possible surely? Didn't those nice Iona people tell us it was all a slippery slope and all women would have to do would be claim to be suicidal and they'd be getting abortions right left and centre! Surely such holy people couldn't possibly have been, like, lying? Could they?

Naw, they'll probably say they just got it wrong, statistically, and point towards Inns Quay for upholding the right to travel.

aloyisious

Margaret Hickey of Family & Life, an anti-abortion group, has an article today's Irish Examiner promoting the keeping of the 8th amendment and the ban on abortion. http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/abortion-is-emotive-but-the-law-cannot-be-407615.html

In it, amongst a lot of other things, she claims that allowing for abortion in the case of FFA would not suit Mick Wallace's agenda of allowing women the right to choose for themselves.

FATAL foetal abnormality is a term that has been bandied about as the clincher to force politicians to deal with abortion, which means, of course, repealing the 8th Amendment so that enabling legislation can be passed.

But an abstract argument does not capture the public imagination, so real-life stories are now being embedded in the arguments for expanding abortion legislation in Ireland.

What argument can there be in maintaining a rigid, principled position just for the sake of it, in being more pro-life than nature itself?

It is possible to be empathetic with these families and yet point out that the fatal-foetal abnormality argument is dishonest, manipulative, and disingenuous.

It is being used by people like TD Mick Wallace to force the door open to abortion on demand. He has said that he believes women have the right to chose for themselves.

He rightly judges that fatal-foetal abnormality (and not rape, or any other grounds affecting mother or baby) is the most compelling case for change.

The bringing forward of a bill to allow abortion for women whose babies have been diagnosed with fatal-foetal abnormalities is unconstitutional.

In fact, it would not suit his agenda, because should the Supreme Court allow this exemption, there would be no need to repeal the 8th Amendment and abortion would be restricted to fatal-foetal abnormality.

This would be highly problematic, as fatal-foetal abnormality is not a medical term. It is a construct to justify abortion and you only hear it in that context.

Aloyisious............................

IMO, the only snag with the opinion put forward by Margaret about FFA not being a medical term and it being a construct to justify abortion and you only hear it in that context, is that FFA is an actual medical condition and not a construct to justify a change in abstract law.

It is not an abstract for the women carrying fetus with that medical condition, nor for the doctors and other people in the medical world. It's a very alive situation for them. Margaret acknowledges that fact in her own argument above when she say's, quote; so real-life stories are now being embedded in the arguments for expanding abortion legislation in Ireland.unquote..... That quote refer's to women carrying fetus with FFA in their wombs as she includes their specific mention in media stories further down in her Examiner-article.

Actually, I've only seen the irony in Margaret's mention of real-life stories are now being embedded in the arguments as that was what I thought the opponents to abortion were doing with their publicizing and mentioning of aborted babies being left to die on tables.

lazygal

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/marriage-equality-why-i-wont-be-saying-i-do-to-gay-marriage-321919.html

Ms Hickey also opposed marriage equality-I wonder if Mothers and Fathers matter is still in existence.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

But, but, but... That's not possible surely? Didn't those nice Iona people tell us it was all a slippery slope and all women would have to do would be claim to be suicidal and they'd be getting abortions right left and centre! Surely such holy people couldn't possibly have been, like, lying? Could they?

Hmm. Does this mean the Act actually is fit for purpose and not the disaster the pro choice camp have been claiming? Wow... Who would've guessed

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

IMO, the only snag with the argument put forward by Margaret about FFA not being a medical term is that FFA is an actual medical condition, and not an abstract for the women carrying fetus with that medical condition, nor for the doctors and other people in the medical world. It's a very alive situation for them. Margaret acknowledges that fact in her own argument above when she say's, quote; so real-life stories are now being embedded in the arguments for expanding abortion legislation in Ireland.unquote..... That quote refer's to women carrying fetus with FFA in their wombs as she includes their specific mention in media stories further down in her Examiner-article.

Sound like the argument being put forward is what I thought it would be so. IMO the snag with your opinion is that FFA isn't an actual medical condition; it's a term used to group some medical conditions based on their likely outcome.

Loafing Oaf

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/this-is-ireland-2016-not-ireland-1920-tds-break-down-during-debate-on-abortion-34847204.html

Things getting emotional in the Dail tonight. Surprised how much heat Wallace's bill is generating, but I guess he'll see it as a victory in itself to keep the issue in the headlines.

aloyisious

I'm not sure if Simon Harris is saying to women "you'll have to suck up the pain and upset and go to a full term birth of your FFA fetus" with his statement in the Dail, or whether he's recognizing the situation Irish law has put any women (Amanda Mellet for example as he apologized to he) here carrying FFA fetus and hinting to them [accidentally/sotto voce in parliamentary language] "head abroad for an abortion because you won't get abortions here".

Health Minister Simon Harris said he has been informed by the Chief Medical Officer that if a foetus has the capacity to be born, it has the protection of the constitution. “It can never be said that a foetus with a fatal foetal abnormality will not be born to live for a short time, even if that is only to be minutes, to draw a breath and to have a detectable heartbeat,” the Wicklow TD said.

He then went on (according to the article) to apologize to Amanda Mellet, who took her case to the UN, which found she was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in being obliged to choose between carrying her fetus to term or travelling abroad for a termination.

The CMO has to have meant his advice to Simon to be specifically medically in relation to Fetus with FFA, because if it was more general than that, it would clash with POLDPA which legalizes abortions in specific cases here, all very constitutional. In any case, I don't think Simon should be taking constitutional law advice from the CMO, when he has the AG there for advice and has already quoted from her advice several days ago on Mick Wallace's bill.

Edit: while typing the above, I was listening to a TV current affairs discussion show on TV 3 which ended with a few minutes of "what it says in the papers" with the host asking an F/G Senator about the abortion row in the Dail. I may have misheard what was said but I thought I heard him say he was in approval of abortion in the case of FFA. Again I was typing at the time and that task took most of my attention so I may have misheard or misunderstood what the F/G Senator was saying...

Absolam

It seems to me he is saying that his advice from the CMO is a child that can be born alive (therefore not a child with FFA per Deputy Wallaces Bill) has a right to life under the Constitution, and inferring by that that at least in the opinion of the CMO (and that wouldn't be a legal opinion, but still an important one) that a child that cannot be born alive does not. Which if it were legally testable, would allow room for abortion of children who have truly fatal abnormalities which would preclude them being born alive.

aloyisious

Kate O'Connell, a FG TD who opposes Mick Wallace's bill because of the AG's advice that it is unconstitutional, spoke during the Dail debate yesterday....

A Fine Gael TD has given an emotional account of her experience with a fatal foetal pregnancy diagnosis.

Dublin Bay South TD Kate O’Connell spoke of the diagnosis during her 20-week scan. She said that “against the odds the pregnancy continued to term and I was delivered of a child that had almost the entirety of his organs outside his body”.

She was speaking during a Dáil debate on the Protection of Life in Pregnancy (Amendment) (Fatal Foetal Abnormalities) Bill.

Her son survived and “is now a fit and healthy five-year-old”, but she said that week they waited for result to tell them if he also had a genetic and fatal abnormality was the hardest of their lives.

“Today as we sit here people are receiving a diagnosis to tell them to prepare for a death not a birth and that their misery cannot be relieved in our own country,” she said.

Ms O’Connell said they should “listen to the medical experts and not some self appointed moral police who will look down on the rest of us from their lofty perches, terrorising TDs with their threats of hellfire and eternal damnation in the hope that it will cause political paralysis”.

Ms O’Connell opposed because the Bill because of advice from the Attorney General that it was unconstitutional.

If the Dáil passes bills which are unconstitutional* what happens?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0701/799452-abortion/

Does / Ought it trigger a referendum on the matter? (or at least a discussion on having a referendum)

Does / Ought it open the Government up for legal action from anyone?

We've not had minority Governments in Ireland before really and so don't have much experience of this being able to happen, let alone happening!

If the Dáil passes bills that are unconstitutional*, what is the fallout?

(* let's just fully assume it is for a second)

robdonn

Dáil Pretend To Debate Abortion Issue Today

DESPITE hearing several moving accounts of TDs own experiences of dealing with the prospect of fatal foetal abnormalities, it is believed the majority of the Dáil will retain its default position of pretending to debate an abortion bill before the Oireachtas.

Old, white and mostly male TDs have been busy all week practicing their ‘yes, we understand and have all the proper feelings’ faces in anticipation that moving accounts of the effects of Ireland’s inadequate abortion laws might actually force them to grow a backbone.

A bill, proposed by Mick Wallace has been rejected out of hand by the Fine Gael led government who have resisted calls from Independents serving in cabinet to allow a free vote on the Bill, at least not until that can be sure the bill will be defeated.

“Do you know how hard we worked to keep discussions on abortions out of the chamber, and you expect us to just let Mick Wallace waltz in here with a solution,” an unnamed government minister shared with WWN.

The minister then pointed out that it was of great comfort to the Fine Gael side of the cabinet that the much maligned Wexford TD is easily dismissed owing to the very serious fact that he wears pink t-shirts.

“Imagine a female TD proposed this bill, we’d have to work even harder to appear like we give a **** about doing our jobs. The Dáil is about cushy pensions, not making laws and all that nonsense,” the minister added.

The minister went on to conclude that if the Government got the level debate right, it hopefully won’t make a ripple in the news later this evening.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

If the Dáil passes bills which are unconstitutional* what happens?
(* let's just fully assume it is for a second)

If it could be unConstitutional the President refers it to the Supreme Court, who decide whether it is or isn't. If they say the Bill is unConstitutional, the President cannot sign it, and it therefore does not become law.

volchitsa

robdonn wrote: »

Dáil Pretend To Debate Abortion Issue Today

It says something - albeit not a good thing - when a satirical newspaper regularly gets closer to the truth of a situation than the "serious" media.

PopePalpatine

A federal judge has blocked an Indiana abortion law which would limit a woman's right to have an abortion in the case of foetal genetic abnormalities.

aloyisious

Deleted User wrote: »

If the Dáil passes bills which are unconstitutional* what happens?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0701/799452-abortion/

Does / Ought it trigger a referendum on the matter? (or at least a discussion on having a referendum)

Does / Ought it open the Government up for legal action from anyone?

We've not had minority Governments in Ireland before really and so don't have much experience of this being able to happen, let alone happening!

If the Dáil passes bills that are unconstitutional*, what is the fallout?

(* let's just fully assume it is for a second)

QUESTIONS 1 & 4 together, as they seem similar......... By Dail you mean both houses of the Oireachtas as both have to pass the bill. the President can call the council of state to ask their opinion if a bill sent for his signature is constitutional. He doesn't have to accept their advice and can send it to the Supreme Court for a decision. The SC decides if it's constitutional, no one else. If it doesn't affect citizens rights, it's good law & the President can sign it. If it has bad effect, it's bad law, it's binned. The AG can only offer opinions to the Govt if a bill's in line with the constitution.

QUESTION 2.... A referendum never arises in such cases.

Oireachtas procedure - Link: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiHpeSVutLNAhWiK8AKHYsNC90QFggdMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oireachtas.ie%2Fviewdoc.asp%3Ffn%3D%2Fdocuments%2Fbills28%2Fguide.htm&usg=AFQjCNEIpCiiAljuudpsnE5V4NcvTNYvWw

Fifth (Final) Stage: whether the Bill, in its current form, would constitute good law

Debate takes place on a motion "That the Bill do now pass".
The proposer may also reply to the debate;
Other members may speak once only.
The Bill, if passed, is then sent to other House
Typically from Dáil to Seanad, and second, third, fourth and fifth stages are repeated.

Enactment

As a general rule, the President is required to sign a Bill presented to him or her for signature not earlier than the fifth day or later than the seventh day after it has been so presented (Art.25.2.1).

A Bill becomes law on the day it is signed by the President and, unless the contrary intention appears, comes into operation on that day (Art. 25.4.1). A Bill may, for example, contain provision for its commencement (in whole or in part) by way of Ministerial order.

QUESTION 3 ....Re legal action against the Govt, that'd be covered in my LINK below of a citizen/s taking a case to the High Court. It would be against the state with the AG and senior counsel arguing for the state. After a bill is signed into law by the president, citizens can take a stated case to the High Court asking for a ruling on it's constitutionality.

Judicial proceedings para's....

The High Court has the power or jurisdiction to cancel any law or part of any law that is repugnant to the Constitution. This means that if you believe that a law breaches the Constitution or your fundamental rights, you may bring proceedings in the High Court. The constitutionality of an Act that has not yet commenced may be challenged where an order commencing it could be made at any time. Notice of the proceedings must be served on the Attorney General.

In order to challenge the constitutionality of legislation, you must show that you have "sufficient interest" in the proceedings, that is, that the legislation affects you in some real way. You must also show that you have an arguable case, that is, that your case has grounds.

The High Court will examine the legislation in question and decide whether or not it conflicts with the Constitution. If it decides that the legislation does conflict with the Constitution, it may annul or cancel the law or the part of it that is unconstitutional.

The High Court’s decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Link: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiDn-CAwtLNAhWCHsAKHUwFDIAQFggkMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.citizensinformation.ie%2Fen%2Fgovernment_in_ireland%2Fnational_government%2Fstandards_and_accountability%2Funconstitutional_legislation_and_decisions.html&usg=AFQjCNGvDvkcfOOTY-bDL5JJfrjhbQtpLg

Just as a rider, the same citizens action can be taken against referendums voting changes into the constitution.

Hope the above was useful....

aloyisious

PopePalpatine wrote: »

A federal judge has blocked an Indiana abortion law which would limit a woman's right to have an abortion in the case of foetal genetic abnormalities.

I can see that going to the USSC, even if it's on grounds like haemophilia being used by opponents of abortion whereby a faulty gene can be responsible for it's transference and they'll claim discrimination on gender grounds. I hope I'm not putting ideas into their heads.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

Ms O’Connell opposed because the Bill because of advice from the Attorney General that it was unconstitutional.

Yes, but she also gave reasons why the bill is inadequate; mainly that it failed to define FFA. As pointed out earlier in the thread, as long as there are people walking around who can claim to have recovered from FFA a bill like this is doomed. It was just a publicity stunt by Wallace to propose the same bill again, knowing the flaws in it, and knowing it had already failed before.

Kate O'Connell was being overly generous in saying Deputy Wallace was "courageous" in bringing the bill forward. He expended minimal effort over it.
O'Connell is the courageous one, and also a good deal smarter than most of her colleagues there. The flouride debate when she was a councillor is slightly off topic, but hilarious...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wReANdzf3b4

Absolam wrote: »

It seems to me he is saying that his advice from the CMO is a child that can be born alive (therefore not a child with FFA per Deputy Wallaces Bill) has a right to life under the Constitution, and inferring by that that at least in the opinion of the CMO (and that wouldn't be a legal opinion, but still an important one) that a child that cannot be born alive does not. Which if it were legally testable, would allow room for abortion of children who have truly fatal abnormalities which would preclude them being born alive.

Well if you read Harri's account carefully, he actually uses the word "never", which indicates that his interpretation is that there is no scope at all for FFA abortions. His use of double negatives is not helpful, but IMO that's what he is saying.
Also according to the account, the the CMO did not say constitutional protection was extended to anything capable of being "born alive" but just "born". Which also indicates no scope for FFA abortion.
I agree though, that its not actually a legal opinion. Unless the CMO got it elsewhere from a legal source.

Health Minister Simon Harris said he has been informed by the Chief Medical Officer that if a foetus has the capacity to be born, it has the protection of the constitution.
“It can never be said that a foetus with a fatal foetal abnormality will not be born to live for a short time, even if that is only to be minutes, to draw a breath and to have a detectable heartbeat,” the Wicklow TD said.

Absolam

I would have said the capacity to be born indicates surviving birth, so being alive. It would require no capacity at all to be expelled dead, but perhaps I'm giving too much credit for specificity.

I would have thought his use of the word never indicates the belief that we could not have a situation where a child capable of being born alive might be euthanised before birth.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

Also according to the account, the the CMO did not say constitutional protection was extended to anything capable of being "born alive" but just "born". Which also indicates no scope for FFA abortion.
I agree though, that its not actually a legal opinion. Unless the CMO got it elsewhere from a legal source.

Given how the AG, while not a minister (is a member of the cabinet) she, and any minister she give's advice to, will be bound by cabinet confidentiality. We may/will have to wait until the 50 (or whatever) year rule allows for the release of cabinet papers to historians and the public to know what her advice was. Simon may have had a chat with the CMO in his Dept, or the CMO may have asked Simon a question about what was in the media about the issue.

Edit: while it's apparent that her advice is based on and in relation to the wording of the 8th amendment, as far as I know, no one has revealed the exact wording of her advice or even if it was on paper or just disseminated to the ministers over secure Email routes. The mystery continues.

Absolam

I don't see how it matters what the AGs advice was... Only that the AG has created doubt as to the Constitutionality of the Bill. Once that doubt exists, the Presidents obligation is clear.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I would have said the capacity to be born indicates surviving birth, so being alive. It would require no capacity at all to be expelled dead, but perhaps I'm giving too much credit for specificity.

I would have thought his use of the word never indicates the belief that we could not have a situation where a child capable of being born alive might be euthanised before birth.

My first impression was different, but I would not argue with you on either those points. The whole thing is too far into BS territory anyway. Arguing over whether a miscarriage is born or not, or whether a foetus expelled after the mother has been involved in a car crash is like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Likewise with trying to interpret what Harris is trying to say. He's a nice lad, but he has been hoisted too far up the political ladder too soon.

aloyisious wrote: »

Given how the AG, while not a minister (is a member of the cabinet) she, and any minister she give's advice to, will be bound by cabinet confidentiality. We may/will have to wait until the 50 (or whatever) year rule allows for the release of cabinet papers to historians and the public to know what her advice was. Simon may have had a chat with the CMO in his Dept, or the CMO may have asked Simon a question about what was in the media about the issue.

All I'll say about that is "the cabinet" has evolved over time as a feature of the British govt. which has a flexible unwritten constitution. But there is no cabinet in the written Irish constitution and therefore no cabinet, and no "cabinet confidentiality". Despite what the various RTE reporters and numerous govt. ministers would have you believe.

Hotblack Desiato

Cabaal wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IvGlAXa0wY

Is it a fact that women have to strip down to their pants before taking abortion pills? :rolleyes:


(not your fault Cabaal!)

Deleted User wrote: »

We've not had minority Governments in Ireland before really

We've had lots of them, probably more than majority governments actually (as they don't tend to last a full term.)