Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Loafing Oaf

Absolam wrote: »

I've no doubt there are politicians with genuine honestly held opinions on both sides of this particular debate. I've also no doubt there are politicians who will see political capital to be made in supporting this bill. If you're not cynical about Irish politics, you're not paying attention.

Well I think it's absurd to attribute the motives you do to the prime movers behind the bill, Wallace and Daly, given their outspoken and in Daly's case longstanding public positions on the issue.

aloyisious

The Black Oil wrote: »

Hi there.

From Broadsheet/Twitter

Meanwhile...

https://twitter.com/anitambyrne/status/750405923353616384

Ta for that. I see what Ray D'arcy was talking about now. He must'a been amused at being co-opted by Iona. :-)

Cora's doing excellent work fielding the questions she raised.

Absolam

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well I think it's absurd to attribute the motives you do to the prime movers behind the bill, Wallace and Daly, given their outspoken and in Daly's case longstanding public positions on the issue.

Actually, I wouldn't attribute those motives to either Wallace or Daly... But I would to any politician who now claims to be pro choice and backs the Bill.

Well.... Maybe a bit more sure about Daly than Wallace. He's a bit of a chancer in fairness.

Loafing Oaf

Speaking during the latest leaders questions Dáil debate yesterday, Mr Howlin said it is deeply worrying that Mr Kenny has been “faced down by members of his own cabinet” and has been unable to stop them taking an “a-la-carte approach to advice from the attorney general”...Claiming the “rule of law” in Government is now broken and that “no rules apply”, Mr Howlin said unless Mr Kenny moves to re-assert his power, his authority will be questioned.

So that's the appaling vista is it? Somehow I think Enda will be able to take the hit on this...

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Being seen to be supportive of a measure of abortion that has polled as being the most palatable circumstance for abortion to the electorate.

Actually, in the first such poll I was able to find (Sindo/Milbro, Nov '15) that's not at all the case. Support for access in cases of rape and long-term risk (as well as suicidality and medical risk of loss of life, obviously now provided for) were all higher than FFA.

One would be an especially trusting person not to suspect that some people supporting this (especially the modest number of 'Fianna Fail liberals' that have spoken up) are doing so in the hopes of avoiding a more general examination of the 8th. And to be an equal-opportunity cynic, you'd wonder if some on the alphabet-soup left are supporting it in the hopes that it's then found not to be constitutional, because public outrage and political crisis; smash the state; ... ; profit.

alaimacerc

aloyisious wrote: »

Simon Harris has stated that the wording in the 8th has to change, so there may be other young FG TD's with opinions different to Enda's opinion.

I think you mean change to "none". He's said he favours a referendum for repeal, and the context of his remarks very much suggested that's what he'd favour happening, too.

I don't see FF voting for it, they'll probably just abstain in the vote.

Numerous FF spokesentities have been holding forth on their unparalleled graciousness and virtue in having a free vote on the PoLDPA. (i.e., allowing their backwoodsmen to slither out of their responsibilities to legislate for an existing SC decision.) This seemed to be to be, at the very least, a broad hint they were going to do the same in this case. Several have already indicated they're supportive, some would obviously be inclined to oppose.

If FF keep having too many "free votes" on which they all just happen to vote exactly the same way, it might start to look slightly suspicious...

This is an IMO: Re the AG, she can be right in what the law say's in it's wording in 43.3.3 (as amended by the 8th) but if the independents have different legal advice and think she's basing her advice NOT on 40.3.3 (as amended by the 8th) but on something from the SC, they can ignore her advice; "nothing personal".

That's essentially saying that 15.4.1 is entirely void. If the first legal opinion you get isn't one you like, keep going until you find one you like better, and then go ahead and have a punt at legislating however you wish.

aloyisious

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think you mean change to "none". He's said he favours a referendum for repeal, and the context of his remarks very much suggested that's what he'd favour happening, too.


Numerous FF spokesentities have been holding forth on their unparalleled graciousness and virtue in having a free vote on the PoLDPA. (i.e., allowing their backwoodsmen to slither out of their responsibilities to legislate for an existing SC decision.) This seemed to be to be, at the very least, a broad hint they were going to do the same in this case. Several have already indicated they're supportive, some would obviously be inclined to oppose.

If FF keep having too many "free votes" on which they all just happen to vote exactly the same way, it might start to look slightly suspicious...



That's essentially saying that 15.4.1 is entirely void. If the first legal opinion you get isn't one you like, keep going until you find one you like better, and then go ahead and have a punt at legislating however you wish.

Now that sound's remarkably like Leinster House, politics as usual. They've long since made me ditch my rose-tinted glasses.

seamus

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.

Sam Coulter-Smith had an interesting point of view on this yesterday (sorry to be dragging the posts back a bit).

That the constitution recognises the right to life is something of a foregone conclusion and therefore would appear to make Wallace's bill unconstitutional.

However, he did point out that there was a clause there - the state had a duty to "defend, as far as is practicable" that right to life.

And if a foetus has an FFA which has been confirmed as such, it would seem that defending that unborn's right to life is not only futile, but is also not practicable. And therefore constitutional to permit abortions in these cases.

Obviously he wasn't saying this as fact, instead simply making the point that this is something the Supreme Court could have to rule on, it's a strong argument that could be made in favour of Wallace's bill, and that abortion for FFAs being unconstitutional is not a forgone conclusion.

Ultimately Mick Wallace's bill is a stunt to keep the debate at the forefront and not allow it to be ignored or pushed back to another government. Look at the dissent it's stirring up before it's even voted on.

He's forcing the Government's hand to set a date for a referendum. If Enda refuses to set the date, he faces a vote of no confidence from his own TDs who want to repeal the eighth, and ultimately the end of his career.

Loafing Oaf

seamus wrote: »

Ultimately Mick Wallace's bill is a stunt to keep the debate at the forefront and not allow it to be ignored or pushed back to another government. Look at the dissent it's stirring up before it's even voted on.

He's forcing the Government's hand to set a date for a referendum. If Enda refuses to set the date, he faces a vote of no confidence from his own TDs who want to repeal the eighth, and ultimately the end of his career.

Yes I think this too and I'd say he and his cohorts are delighted how well they have succeeded. More specifically, it's about forcing senior Fine Gael figures off the fence on the issue, as it has done with Simon Harris. If sufficient critical mass in favour of a referendum builds up within FG, then ultimately the assembly becomes an irrelevance.

aloyisious

seamus wrote: »

Sam Coulter-Smith had an interesting point of view on this yesterday (sorry to be dragging the posts back a bit).

However, he did point out that there was a clause there - the state had a duty to "defend, as far as is practicable" that right to life.

And if a foetus has an FFA which has been confirmed as such, it would seem that defending that unborn's right to life is not only futile, but is also not practicable. And therefore constitutional to permit abortions in these cases.

Obviously he wasn't saying this as fact, instead simply making the point that this is something the Supreme Court could have to rule on, it's a strong argument that could be made in favour of Wallace's bill, and that abortion for FFAs being unconstitutional is not a forgone conclusion.

Pro-lifers would probably say that is adding 2 and 2 and coming up with 5. It might be possible to get an extremely optimistic SC and ask him to ask the SC to examine and qualify that part, take a leap into the dark but the SC would probably turn it down. It's probably been done in the past, but with people examining the wording and it's meaning more vigorously these days it's possible that something other than a NO might come from such a request.

it might be helpful if the SMO in the Dept of Health had made his advice to Simon Harris re the Wallace bill in writing, because there might be something in it's wording which could be used to determine if the SMO had doubts about 40.3.3 as amended by the 8th, or even the 8th's wording itself, or on the viability of life for some feotus post birth, and whether the advice could be obtained under a freedom of information request, or by direct request by a TD in the house. I don't know if the SMO's advice has been entered into the Dail record other than through Simon Harris's statement mentioning it in the Dail. Advice on a legal issue offered verbally really doesn't have much standing, unless the advisor restates it for the record with a legal person there to make such a recording.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Actually, in the first such poll I was able to find (Sindo/Milbro, Nov '15) that's not at all the case. Support for access in cases of rape and long-term risk (as well as suicidality and medical risk of loss of life, obviously now provided for) were all higher than FFA.

I'd be a little wary of giving more credence to your single survey without even a link to it than I give to the many surveys linked by Robdonn in the course of the thread, but yes, there's definitely a diversity of opinion out there.

alaimacerc wrote: »

One would be an especially trusting person not to suspect that some people supporting this (especially the modest number of 'Fianna Fail liberals' that have spoken up) are doing so in the hopes of avoiding a more general examination of the 8th. And to be an equal-opportunity cynic, you'd wonder if some on the alphabet-soup left are supporting it in the hopes that it's then found not to be constitutional, because public outrage and political crisis; smash the state; ... ; profit.

It would (if successful) certainly be a way of substantially reducing support for a referendum on the 8th, though given the slim possibility of success it seems a bit of a fools gambit; all it will likely do is fan the flames of discussion, which would not really serve the interests of anyone opposing the possibility of repeal.

Absolam

seamus wrote: »

Sam Coulter-Smith had an interesting point of view on this yesterday (sorry to be dragging the posts back a bit).

That the constitution recognises the right to life is something of a foregone conclusion and therefore would appear to make Wallace's bill unconstitutional.

However, he did point out that there was a clause there - the state had a duty to "defend, as far as is practicable" that right to life.

And if a foetus has an FFA which has been confirmed as such, it would seem that defending that unborn's right to life is not only futile, but is also not practicable. And therefore constitutional to permit abortions in these cases.

Obviously he wasn't saying this as fact, instead simply making the point that this is something the Supreme Court could have to rule on, it's a strong argument that could be made in favour of Wallace's bill, and that abortion for FFAs being unconstitutional is not a forgone conclusion.

I'm inclined to agree with that line of thinking; it makes sense and is consistent with how we treat born individuals in similarly hopeless situations. Where I think it fails though, is that it is practicable to say no action may be taken to end the life of the unborn prematurely; and such a position would also be consistent with how we treat terminally ill patients. My feeling is the Supreme Court would look to find an equivalence in permissible measures, based on the equal right to life. So would likely approve the withdrawal or withholding of care as being appropriate for terminal patients whether born or unborn, but not deliberate action to end their lives, again, whether born or unborn. I would hope (and expect) the SC would deliver a judgment with considerably more meat to it than a simple yea or nay, however that may be constrained by what they're given to rule on.

alaimacerc

I just caught them saying at the end of the News at One that a mighty 5 FFers voted for this. So it seems they don't have so much of a "liberal wing", as a "back of a minivan".

Delirium

Seems Wallace's bill has been defeated.

https://twitter.com/breakingnewsie/status/751030238956707840

alaimacerc

http://www.todayfm.com/Wallace-abortion-bill-defeated-in-Dail

Not even Sean Fleming, one of the leading FF hand-wringers about "morality" and free votes voted for it. Laughable, were it not so tragic.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

I'd be a little wary of giving more credence to your single survey without even a link to it than I give to the many surveys linked by Robdonn in the course of the thread, but yes, there's definitely a diversity of opinion out there.

I gave a provider and a date, and google is a thing. So your complaint on that score doesn't "even" seem to have the least bit of standing. As for its singleton status, as I said, it just happened to be first I found with any such breakdown. And it indicated an earlier such survey, discussing the change between them, of which the same observation would appear also to be true. So I'm counting 2/2 thus far, and I'm more than a little "wary" about extending much "credence" to vague statements about "many surveys". Much less of wasting too much more of my life chasing down offhand references to things "throughout the thread".

It would (if successful) certainly be a way of substantially reducing support for a referendum on the 8th, though given the slim possibility of success it seems a bit of a fools gambit; all it will likely do is fan the flames of discussion, which would not really serve the interests of anyone opposing the possibility of repeal.

You say "substantially", but it's far from clear there's any real gap at all between support for FFA for the other "popular" exceptions, much less a "substantial" one. Looking now at a summary of various past surveys on Wikipedia, where there's such a gap at all, it's typically running at about 1-2%, most commonly over the sexual crime one.

For people that support multiple such exceptions (or broader liberalisation), what effect dealing with just one of them is very much open to question. People are hardly likely to change their minds about their positions on these; it might move it further down their political agenda somewhat.

What's pretty clear is that the chances of such a measure passing are hampered less by the assorted constitutional difficulties, considerable as those may be, than by a) the plain fact that the Dail is vastly more conservative on this issue than the general populace, and b) by the legal difficulties/tactical decision by FG to package this up/long-finger with broader consideration of the 8th.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

I gave a provider and a date, and google is a thing. So your complaint on that score doesn't "even" seem to have the least bit of standing. As for its singleton status, as I said, it just happened to be first I found with any such breakdown. And it indicated an earlier such survey, discussing the change between them, of which the same observation would appear also to be true. So I'm counting 2/2 thus far, and I'm more than a little "wary" about extending much "credence" to vague statements about "many surveys". Much less of wasting too much more of my life chasing down offhand references to things "throughout the thread".

Sure.. But you'll understand that if you're not posting the evidence no one is going to feel obliged to go look it up so they can consider it... Either you're presenting it or not. I've no issue with you dismissing Robdonns surveys; I'm sure he'll link them if he feels it's worth disputing.

alaimacerc wrote: »

You say "substantially", but it's far from clear there's any real gap at all between support for FFA for the other "popular" exceptions, much less a "substantial" one. Looking now at a summary of various past surveys on Wikipedia, where there's such a gap at all, it's typically running at about 1-2%, most commonly over the sexual crime one.

It certainly does appear to depend on the surveys you look at so.

alaimacerc wrote: »

For people that support multiple such exceptions (or broader liberalisation), what effect dealing with just one of them is very much open to question. People are hardly likely to change their minds about their positions on these; it might move it further down their political agenda somewhat.

Sure; it obviously would only satisfy those who see FFA as the on,y reason to liberalise abortion law. But having satisfied them, their support would not be available for further liberalisation, such as repealing the 8th. Since the Bill hasn't passed, that support may still be courted.

alaimacerc wrote: »

What's pretty clear is that the chances of such a measure passing are hampered less by the assorted constitutional difficulties, considerable as those may be, than by a) the plain fact that the Dail is vastly more conservative on this issue than the general populace, and b) by the legal difficulties/tactical decision by FG to package this up/long-finger with broader consideration of the 8th.

Well... Maybe. I think there are probably Dail members who agree it is their duty to vote down legislation repugnant to the Constitution, regardless of their opinion, so the Constitutional difficulty can't be ignored. There are others who won't break ranks with the party whip, and that whip was also determined by the constitutional difficulties. I'd say most Dail members are about as conservative as they think the populace (or at least their constituents) want them to be.

Loafing Oaf

[QUOTE=Absolam;100281701

It certainly does appear to depend on the surveys you look at so.[/QUOTE]

In which surveys is the percentage supporting a right to abortion in cases of FFA significantly higher than in cases of rape/incest?

Absolam

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

In which surveys is the percentage supporting a right to abortion in cases of FFA significantly higher than in cases of rape/incest?

Actually, in fairness I think rape was lumped in with FFA in the last survey Robdonn posted, so I suppose you couldn't say one had more support than the other, though I don't think incest was mentioned. Beyond that you'd be going back a bit so I think you'd need to ask Robdonn if he recalls.

PopePalpatine

alaimacerc wrote: »

I just caught them saying at the end of the News at One that a mighty 5 FFers voted for this. So it seems they don't have so much of a "liberal wing", as a "back of a minivan".

A "liberal wingtip" would be a better term.

aloyisious

Nice to see that FF kept to their word that they would not vote on the Wallace Bill in a way that would damage the present Unity Govt... entirely fortuitous that things worked out in line with the latest poll showing how they had got an increase in approval ratings from the public. It help's keep the legacy of their founder, the '37 constitution, alive for his grandson, Eamon O'Cuiv, to follow in his footsteps with his support of the Life institute;

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi8wbHk0uLNAhWDLMAKHafUCPoQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thelifeinstitute.net%2Fcurrent-projects%2Fvote-for-life-2016%2Fvote-for-life-2016--candidates--connaught%2F&usg=AFQjCNEv0ARzigbL95x1zD6ZUtk9ENdqnA.

It seem's to me that FG, the party that people warned me about as being fascist, are more aware of what the public want, and prepared to give them it, than FF, the (upper case) Republican Party, is, or want's to be. FF seem's to be misogynist in character. Maybe opportunist would be a kinder description of FF in it's present make-up of gender perception and treatment.

aloyisious

I wanted to see exactly what 40.3.3 said again so to see what article 40 would look like without it. It look's like this is what will be left in article 40.....

Fundamental Rights.

Personal Rights

Article 40

Section 3.

Sub-section 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

Sub-section 2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

There are two further sentences in the PDF Constitution of Ireland I looked at, and these are immediately below 40.3.3. As they directly relate to 40.3.3 (The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right) they (EDIT) may well be affected as well.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state. This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state. What's written in those two sentences above were brought into the constitution by amendments 13 and 14 on Dec 23 1992 (presumably by referendums as well, so can't be removed except by the same).

Dept of the Taoiseach link to constitution..... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi2psud4OPNAhXnAMAKHU8iD8gQFggnMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.taoiseach.gov.ie%2Feng%2FHistorical_Information%2FThe_Constitution%2FFebruary_2015_-_Constitution_of_Ireland_.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFxsk8pAjmzvl6PzrDP8BDOrbRYSw

Relevant page in same..... 154.

...................................................................................................................................................................

Can some-one show me where the right to travel is guaranteed....... OK, found the answer: 13 and 14th amendments......
Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1992
[Provided that Article 40.3.3° (the right to life of the unborn) would not limit freedom to travel between Ireland and another state] 23 December, 1992

Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1992
[Provided that Article 40.3.3°( the right to life of the unborn) would not limit freedom to obtain or make available information relating to services lawfully available in another state.] 23 December, 1992

................................................................................................................................................................................

This link from a UCC Constitutional Law senior lecturer refer's to what might happen if the 8th was REPEALED by us. it's from Jan 2015.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiJiarr3OPNAhXpKMAKHU47BbwQFgg6MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fconstitutionproject.ie%2F%3Fp%3D380&usg=AFQjCNGR0qEpeUafx4nYVgReiXOZ4yz7sA

Delirium

Two-thirds of voters say they are in favour of repealing the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution to allow for abortion in cases of rape and fatal foetal abnormalities, according to the latest Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll.

The Eighth Amendment, inserted into the Constitution as article 40.3.3 in 1983, guarantees the equal right to life of the unborn and the mother, and is the foundation for Ireland’s anti-abortion laws.

The attorney general recently reaffirmed her advice that proposed legislation allowing for abortion in case of fatal foetal abnormalities fell foul of the constitutional protections of article 40.3.3.

The Dáil rejected the legislation, proposed by Independent TD Mick Wallace, yesterday.

Asked if they were in favour of changing the Constitution “so that terminations in, for example, the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormality might be made legal”, 67 per cent of respondents said they were in favour.

Some 21 per cent said they were opposed to repealing the eighth amendment, while 12 per cent said they didn’t know.

Full article here

Absolam

I think that's the survey Robdonn posted a while back iirc.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, in fairness I think rape was lumped in with FFA in the last survey Robdonn posted, so I suppose you couldn't say one had more support than the other, though I don't think incest was mentioned. Beyond that you'd be going back a bit so I think you'd need to ask Robdonn if he recalls.

Well first off, it's robdonn, not Robdonn.

As for my previous posts with polls, I can't find it. Boards.ie search is awful!

I think that one of the polls I linked to was the RedC / Amnesty International one (Feb 2016), as that poll has a good breakdown of reasons why people would allow or not allow abortion.

Results

Reason(s) | % | Male | Female
I am opposed to allowing abortion in Ireland in all circumstances | 5 | 4 | 5
Woman’s life is at risk | 7 | 8 | 6
Women’s life is at risk OR fatal foetal abnormality | 7 | 7 | 6
Women’s life is at risk OR fatal foetal abnormality OR result of rape or incest, or where the woman’s health is at risk | 42 | 42 | 43
In favour of allowing all women access to abortion in Ireland as they choose | 38 | 37 | 39

volchitsa

It's interesting that today's article says this latest poll is broadly in line with a previous one carried out earlier this year, which seems to show that views are fairly well defined, and not being influenced by events, which is the claim made by anti-referendists every time something happens like Savita Halappanavar or Miss Y.

And in fact the earler IT poll had 64% for and 25% against, as opposed to 67/21 this time around. I don't know how significant the change is, but if there is a real change, it's certainly heading in the right direction.

Today’s figures are broadly in line with a poll in the Irish Times earlier this year, where 64 per cent said they were in favour of repealing the amendment and 25 per cent were against in the circumstances offered in the question.

drkpower

The pie chart is quite misleading. It suggests that 67% want repeal of the 8th simpliciter.

But the question apparently asked was whether you favoured repeal of the 8th “so that terminations in, for example, the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormality might be made legal”.

Repealing the 8th has much wider implications than rape and FFA obviously and when the debate starts in earnest its hard not to see that number narrow significantly.

volchitsa

drkpower wrote: »

The pie chart is quite misleading. It suggests that 67% want repeal of the 8th simpliciter.

But the question apparently asked was whether you favoured repeal of the 8th “so that terminations in, for example, the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormality might be made legal”.

Repealing the 8th has much wider implications than rape and FFA obviously and when the debate starts in earnest its hard not to see that number narrow significantly.

Are you saying that rape and FFA can be legislated for without repealing the 8th?

drkpower

No

alaimacerc

drkpower wrote: »

The pie chart is quite misleading. It suggests that 67% want repeal of the 8th simpliciter.

But the question apparently asked was whether you favoured repeal of the 8th “so that terminations in, for example, the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormality might be made legal”.

You may feel that's "leading the witness", but a) you should see the doozies that the likes of the PLC use in the opinion-polling ("do you support the 8th amendment, ensuring as it does best medical and moral practice, or are you some sort of heartless amoral child-murdering atheistic monster?"), and b) past opinion polls have unearthed a significant tranche of people that seemingly want both no change on the 8th, and a whole slew of exceptions... that aren't possible without change or repeal of the 8th.

Repealing the 8th has much wider implications than rape and FFA obviously and when the debate starts in earnest its hard not to see that number narrow significantly.

It has the "implication" that the Dáil will have to get its finger out, and legislate for any cases that it wishes to allow. Wider abortion access doesn't magically become legal overnight, simply from repeal of the 8th. And the Dáil is massively conservative on this whole area, as compared to the population as a whole.

Naturally the PLC, YD, LI, etc, will run on "commie pinko TDs will legislate to make it compulsory in the morning!", and naturally some people will buy it.