Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Shrap

Oh boy. Well, paper never refused ink....

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ann-mcelhinney-abortion-campaigners-should-be-careful-about-what-they-wish-for-1.2423209

Because a sensationalist, gratuitous shock-mongering article by two of the US best loved conservative speakers about the tiny percentage of late term abortions adds "balance"? Or just the Irish Times sinking to new lows of click-bait? You decide.

Dan_Solo

Patrick Wheelock wrote: »

My penis, your vagina.

My arse, your face.

Doubt the second one is a beardy sky ghost approved sexual activity myself.

PopePalpatine

Shrap wrote: »

Oh boy. Well, paper never refused ink....

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ann-mcelhinney-abortion-campaigners-should-be-careful-about-what-they-wish-for-1.2423209

Because a sensationalist, gratuitous shock-mongering article by two of the US best loved conservative speakers about the tiny percentage of late term abortions adds "balance"? Or just the Irish Times sinking to new lows of click-bait? You decide.

Next they're probably going to re-print some bollocks from somewhere like Breitbart. :rolleyes:

Dan_Solo

Shrap wrote: »

Oh boy. Well, paper never refused ink....

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ann-mcelhinney-abortion-campaigners-should-be-careful-about-what-they-wish-for-1.2423209

His case led many people, investigators, lawyers and jury members to hear for the first time the reality of abortion

Yeah, because an illegal abortion is a good example of a legal one.

Links234

This is one of the most disgusting things I've seen recently, anti-choice campaigners mimicking LGBT equality in a nausiatingly hypocritical piece:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r79EPJp9-CM

It's especially appalling because the likes of Youth Defense, Iona and the rest of that shower were so biliously against marriage equality, yet now they want to drape themselves with that terminology? Hideous.

Cabaal

Links234 wrote: »

This is one of the most disgusting things I've seen recently, anti-choice campaigners mimicking LGBT equality in a nausiatingly hypocritical piece:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r79EPJp9-CM

It's especially appalling because the likes of Youth Defense, Iona and the rest of that shower were so biliously against marriage equality, yet now they want to drape themselves with that terminology? Hideous.

Pretty sickening alright,
They are a homophobic organization and now they are trying to whitewash their own history

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/07/02/youth-defence-on-gay-equality/

This is page 14 of of Youth Defence’s magazine Solas from 2009 concerning the civil union bill. The article is plainly and openly homophobic. It requests supporters to oppose any progressive legislation moving towards gay marriage and adoption by gays. When the .pdf began to be shared around Facebook yesterday many people reported that page 14 had disappeared. Luckily, copies of the original .pdf had been saved. I thought that this would be of special interest considering Eamon Gilmore’s recent comments about gay marriage and YD’s recent campaign and attempt to clean up their image, not to mention the Pride march and the ever-growing demand for equality.

Also their anti gay leaflets - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/68442

Cabaal

Just more on the anti gay leaflets they did, see thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=221779

Youth Defenses submission to the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution was:

1. The Constitutional Family

The family is the fundamental social unit. Article 41.1.1 of Bunreacht na hEireann recognises the special position of the family and gives it inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law. Article 41.3.1 pledges the State to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack. The All Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution (APOCC) should not broaden this constitutional definition of the family.

2. How should one strike a balance between the rights of the family as a unit and the rights of individual members?

The Constitution already does this; firstly by Article 41 which contains the main provisions relating to family and secondly, by Article 40.3.1 which deals with personal rights. The identification of personal rights under Article 40.3.1 are common to all citizens. The rights of the family as a unit and the rights of the individual members of the family are complementary.

3. Is it possible to give constitutional protection to families other than those based on marriage?

Every individual, because of their inherent human dignity, must be protected by the State. The family based on marriage is guaranteed protection under the Constitution and this must remain. It is not possible to give constitutional protection to families other than those based on marriage because the family is a union of a man and woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage. Unions not based on marriage already have protection by the personal rights identified under Article 40.3. Where siblings or other family members reside together, some legal protection with regard to say, distribution of property etc, could be provided. The Constitution currently recognises that the family based on marriage offers the stability and security needed by society. This must not be weakened by affording the same status to other unions.

4. Who has the right to marry?

The legal right to marry should be restricted to one man and one woman, in the best interest of the nation's children and our society. The primary purpose of marriage is to rear children in a loving and secure environment. Children being adopted are entitled to an adoptive mother and an adoptive father, to fulfill the roles of a natural mother and father. Homosexual and lesbian unions should not be given the status of marriage.

5. Who has the right to adopt children?

Homosexual and lesbian couples should never have the right to adopt children. They cannot provide the secure and loving best environment that children require. Parents of Irish children would be horrified to think that their children could, in the event of their deaths, be adopted by homosexuals or lesbians.

6. Is the Constitution's reference to a woman's life within the home a dated one that should be changed?

Absolutely not. It is an important provision and one that reflects the desire of the majority of Irish women, as shown in many surveys, to stay at home and rear their children. Mothers who make many sacrifices to rear their children at home do the State an inestimable and unrewarded service. Article 41.2 should not be changed - instead the APOCC should recommend to the State that it fulfills its obligations to protect mothers at home.

7. What are the rights of Natural mothers and Natural fathers?

The rights of the natural mother are already protected under Article 40 of the Constitution. A natural father's rights should have the same recognition as those of a natural mother.

8. Should the rights of the child be given an expanded constitutional protection, and should the Constitution be changed in view of the UN Convention on the rights of the child?

The child already enjoys Constitutional protection which must be upheld by the State and the Constitution should not be amended to reflect the UN Convention on the rights of the child, or any other extra-territorial conventions.

9. The State and the Family

Despite the Constitutional protection afforded to the family based on marriage, the State continues to fail in its duty to protect and support the family, and has introduced a blatantly anti-family tax measure - tax individualisation - which actively discriminates against single-income families. The APOCC should urge the State to reverse that policy immediately.

10. Bunreacht na hÉireann

The rights of the Family under the Constitution should not be interfered with. Articles 41, 42 and 40.3 reflect the opinions of the majority of Irish people and the best practice for our nation, our children and our society.

Apparently parents in Ireland are horrified at the idea of the ghays adopting children

Parents of Irish children would be horrified to think that their children could, in the event of their deaths, be adopted by homosexuals or lesbians.

The hate is strong with this one,

robdonn

I love how they feel they have to say "homosexual and lesbian", as if they're different things.

Cabaal

robdonn wrote: »

I love how they feel they have to say "homosexual and lesbian", as if they're different things.

Yeah, did find that odd as well.
Shows that they are clueless in relation to what they are talking about,

PopePalpatine

Didn't they also defend the "mother's place is in the home" article in the constitution too?

Cabaal

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Didn't they also defend the "mother's place is in the home" article in the constitution too?

yep,
But in fairness, everyone knows women belong in the home,
Their job is making baby's and baking, anyone against this clearly knows nothing about baking
:pac:

Overheal

Pretty terrible thought process there. Marriage is for making babies! Yeah? Prove it: start a move to ban people from marrying who don't plan to have children; fine couples that never adopt/have children; etc.

PopePalpatine

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Didn't they also defend the "mother's place is in the home" article in the constitution too?

I've found the submissions for that particular part of the Constitutional Convention in this report, on p106.

First there's NEART, which describes itself as a "pro-family, pro-life and pro-woman" coalition. It was formed in 2000 by Pat Buckley, who has campaigned across the EU against abortion. Then there's Comhar Criostai, European Life Network, and Family & Life. Where's that web of Legatus lackeys/Catholic reactionaries when you need it?

Patrick Wheelock

Most pro life people think Youth Defence are loons as well.

Hotblack Desiato

Interesting that all the "civil partnership is enough - we don't need gay marriage" crowd had actually campaigned against civil partnership.

The Irish electorate are not nearly as stupid as YD, Iona et al think.

The Randy Riverbeast

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Interesting that all the "civil partnership is enough - we don't need gay marriage" crowd had actually campaigned against civil partnership.

The Irish electorate are not nearly as stupid as YD, Iona et al think.

It's as if they just dont like gay people. Who would have thought.

Links234 wrote: »

This is one of the most disgusting things I've seen recently, anti-choice campaigners mimicking LGBT equality in a nausiatingly hypocritical piece:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r79EPJp9-CM

It's especially appalling because the likes of Youth Defense, Iona and the rest of that shower were so biliously against marriage equality, yet now they want to drape themselves with that terminology? Hideous.

Well if they want to play that game, the unborn are equal. Different people are just treated differently

Sweet zombie jesus, they even hijacked the logo.

oscarBravo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Interesting that all the "civil partnership is enough - we don't need gay marriage" crowd had actually campaigned against civil partnership.

It's like the Sinn Féin strategy of campaigning against every EU referendum by arguing that the EU we have is fine, and that the treaty being proposed will destroy it.

Amsterdam: we're in favour of the EU created by Maastricht, but Amsterdam is terrible!

Nice: we're in favour of the EU created by Amsterdam, but Nice is terrible!

Lisbon:we're in favour of the EU created by Nice... rinse, repeat.

Cabaal

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/irish-doctors-call-for-decriminalisation-of-abortion-1.2437846

Irish doctors call for decriminalisation of abortion
Letter signed by 838 doctors warns criminalising abortion puts lives at risk

Doctors and health professionals from every region of the world today added their voices to the growing pressure for the decriminalisation of abortion.

Some 838 doctors from 44 countries have signed an open letter to governments published today by Amnesty International.

The letter has been signed by some of the leading figures in Irish healthcare, which include Dr Peter Boylan, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist at the National Maternity Hospital on Holles Street and Dr Veronica O’Keane, Professor in psychiatry at Trinity College Dublin and consultant psychiatrist.

PopePalpatine

B-b-but muh Dublin Declaration!

seamus

Pssht, what do doctors know about reproductive health? I'd like to hear from a celibate man who consults a book of fairytales to find out what his learned opinion is!

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Letter signed by 838 doctors warns criminalising abortion puts lives at risk

abortion ...

... lives at risk

rainbow kirby

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

abortion ...

... lives at risk

The 8th amendment puts women's lives at risk. It's quite simple really.

lazygal

seamus wrote: »

Pssht, what do doctors know about reproductive health? I'd like to hear from a celibate man who consults a book of fairytales to find out what his learned opinion is!

Or a solicitor like Cora Sherlock!!

robindch

A predictable gun attack on a Planned Parenthood outlet has taken place, with the suspect allegedly stating "No more baby parts" as he was being arrested. Nine people were injured and three people died in the attack.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34954474

Cabaal

Of course the media won't call him what he likely is, a christian terrorist. If he looked middle eastern they'd have called him a Muslim terrorist by now

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

A predictable gun attack on a Planned Parenthood outlet has taken place, with the suspect allegedly stating "No more baby parts" as he was being arrested. Nine people were injured and three people died in the attack.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34954474

Defend life - by shooting people :rolleyes:

I wish all religious nuts would expedite their personal passage into paradise, just don't take anyone else with ya. Ta-ra.

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

Of course the media won't call him what he likely is, a christian terrorist. If he looked middle eastern they'd have called him a Muslim terrorist by now

Ted Cruz said the shooter was a "Transgendered Leftist Activist":

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/11/29/ted-cruz-says-planned-parenthood-shooter-was-transgendered-leftist-activist/
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/11/29/cruz-condemns-planned-parenthood-shooting-colorado/

Ted Cruz wrote:

[...] some vicious rhetoric on the left blaming those who are pro-life. [...] The media promptly wants to blame him on the pro-life movement when at this point there’s very little evidence to indicate that [...] It’s also been reported that he was registered as an independent and a woman and a transgendered leftist activist. If that’s what he is, I don’t think it’s fair to blame on the rhetoric on the left. This is a murderer. [...] We know that he was a man who was registered to vote as a woman [...] I would call it a murder, and we’ll see what the facts are [...] It was a multiple murder of what appears to be a deranged individual. And it was horrific, it was evil, and we’ll find out more out about the facts, but I don’t think we should jump to conclusions.

Cabaal

Christian Terrorists strike again!

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/11/30/white-terrorism/

White, right-wing terrorists are killing more Americans in America than jihadists.

Dr Julien Mercille writes:

We have heard a lot about Islamic terrorists recently in the wake of the Paris attacks conducted by ISIS. In general, the implicit or explicit association between “terrorism” and “Islam” can be seen everywhere in popular culture and political commentary.

But last week, we witnessed another act of terrorism, this time committed by a white man in the United States at an abortion clinic in Colorado. Three people died in the shooting and the suspected gunman, Robert Lewis Dear, was taken into custody.

This is yet another event of terrorism conducted by white people, that have killed more individuals in the United States than jihadists since 9-11, as this New America Foundation study found. The study shows that right-wing white terrorists have killed 48 people whereas jihadists have killed 26 since 9-11.

The sad thing is that the shooting at the Colorado abortion clinic is not an isolated event—abortion clinics have long been subjected to terrorist acts and harassment. The perpetrators are often linked to Christian fundamentalist groups, as noted by Juan Cole, the professor of history writing on Islam and religion, in an excellent post on the subject.

Anti-abortion extremists can be seen outside abortion clinics or the houses of those who work there with signs such as “Prepare to Meet Thy God” and “Fear Him Who Has the Power to Cast You Into Hell”.

Anti-abortion extremists have killed eight abortion providers in the US over the years. One well-known case is the assassination of George Tiller in 2009, an abortion doctor who operated in Wichita, Kansas. He was killed point-blank on a Sunday in his Church. After he was murdered, his clinic closed.

Tiller had a history of being targeted by Christian Right terrorists. His clinic was firebombed in 1986. In 1993, he was shot five times by a Christian Right woman called Shelley Shannon (who is now serving time in prison), an attack which he survived.

Targeted intimidation against doctors and staff of abortion clinics is common and on the rise (see this graph). In 2010, 27% of US clinics suffered from those types of threats, whereas in 2014, it was 52%.

This Oxford University Press book tells the stories of abortion providers who have been “physically assaulted, picketed at home, threatened over the phone, and stalked around town”.

As a result, they have been forced to “take different routes to work on a regular basis, they change their schedules frequently, they plan their living arrangements as a precaution, they buy guns, and they wear bulletproof vests.”

Yes, bulletproof vests. As one of them explained

“If anybody told me when I was in medical school that I would go to work armed and with a bulletproof vest, I would have thought they were nuts. But I do have a bulletproof vest, and I do go to clinics armed these days.”

There have been parallel political moves to restrict abortion in the United States. So far in 2015, states have enacted 51 new abortion restrictions, for a total of 282 since 2010.

It is the anti-abortion climate that occupies a large part of public discourse that gives rise to attacks against clinics. With so much of the public discourse demonising abortion, it is no wonder that some people come to believe that clinics are against God’s will or evil in general and decide to take violent means to eliminate them. It is irrational (what exactly does God have to do with abortion again?) but it happens.

And when terrorist acts are committed by white people or Christians, they rarely produce the same sensationalist media coverage. For example, white terrorists are described as “troubled loners” whereas Muslim terrorists are often suspected of being part of a global conspiracy.

Family and relatives of white terrorists are interviewed as they wonder what went wrong, telling us they cannot understand why their son or husband did what he did, whereas relatives of other terrorists are never interviewed.

Also, there’s apparently nothing that can be done to stop white terrorists because they’re bad apples that don’t represent any broader trend, whereas Muslim terrorists can be bombed and police forces boosted to deal with them.

Double standards are thus the rule in public discourse about terrorism.

Cabaal

Remember the chap on CNN who started the whole Starbucks Christmas cup nonsense?.

He previously called for abortion doctors in planned parenthood clinics to be "hunted"....he's since deleted his video where he said this.
People are rightly so now calling for him to be arrested, he's no different to a Muslim calling for anyone else to be hunted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFcLuIuQOJ4

Links234

I'm quite happy to see quite a lot of different sources call these kind of attacks out for what they are, terrorism. There is unifying ideology at play here, and the christian conservative Republicans, far right pundits, Fox and Brietbart and "news" outlets of their ilk have been fanning the flames of this for a long time.

But like Ted Cruz above, they are masters of deflection.

robdonn

Originally posted by frag420 in the Christianity forum:

frag420 wrote: »

The High Court in Belfast rules abortion legislation in Northern Ireland is in breach of human rights laws

More to follow no doubt..........


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-34963159

Cabaal

robdonn wrote: »

Originally posted by frag420 in the Christianity forum:

The judge talked alot of sense

If it is morally wrong to abort a foetus in Northern Ireland, it is just as wrong morally to abort the same foetus in England. It does not protect morals to export the problem to another jurisdiction and then turn a blind eye.

If the aim is to prevent abortion, then it is surely no answer to say that abortion is freely available elsewhere and that necessary services can be easily accessed in an adjacent jurisdiction.

There is no evidence before this court, and the court has in no way attempted to restrict the evidence adduced by any party, that the law in Northern Ireland has resulted in any reduction in the number of abortions obtained by Northern Irish women.

Undoubtedly, it will have placed these women who had to have their abortions in England under greater stress, both financial and emotional, by forcing them to have the termination carried out away from home.

There can be no doubt that the law has made i it much more difficult for those with limited means to travel to England. They are the ones who are more likely to be greatly affected in their ability to terminate their pregnancy if they cannot obtain charitable assistance.

The protection of morals should not contemplate a restriction that bites on the impoverished but not the wealthy. That smacks of one law for the rich and one law for the poor.

MrPudding

Cabaal wrote: »

The judge talked alot of sense

Judges frequently come in for a lot of stick, but generally they do talk a lot of sense, even when one might not agree with the result.

It will be interest to see what happens now. The law still stands. The court has simply said it is incompatible. Now there needs to be legislation to fix the incompatibility, but I am guessing the assembly will be in no hurry to pass it...

MrP

Nodin

Cabaal wrote: »

Of course the media won't call him what he likely is, a christian terrorist. If he looked middle eastern they'd have called him a Muslim terrorist by now

In fairness - according to one news report he told a neighbour that he should get a steel roof because that would stop the Government spying on him.

Nodin

MrPudding wrote: »

Judges frequently come in for a lot of stick, but generally they do talk a lot of sense, even when one might not agree with the result.

It will be interest to see what happens now. The law still stands. The court has simply said it is incompatible. Now there needs to be legislation to fix the incompatibility, but I am guessing the assembly will be in no hurry to pass it...

MrP

Was a similar challenge brought here? I thought there was and it was "thrun out", to use the legal terminology.

MrPudding

Nodin wrote: »

Was a similar challenge brought here? I thought there was and it was "thrun out", to use the legal terminology.

Not sure. Now might be a good time to submit a new challenge. UK court decisions are clearly not binding on Irish courts, but they can be influential. Getting a similar result in Ireland would be very different to this result...

I have not done consti law for a while, but there are some fundamental differences between the UK and Ireland in this area. The SC in Ireland can strike down legislation. The SC in the UK (and this wasn't even the SC) cannot strike down legislation. The most it can do is declare particular legislation as incompatible with whatever it is incompatible with.

The legislature then needs to withdraw the legislation, or rewrite it to be compatible. IIRC there is a fast-track process available to the legislature to redo the legislation, but they are really under any obligation to use it, or even do anything about the incompatibility.

So, technically, this decision has no legal effect in NI. If the Irish SC came to a similar conclusion it could actually have legal effect.

MrP

Cabaal

Nodin wrote: »

In fairness - according to one news report he told a neighbour that he should get a steel roof because that would stop the Government spying on him.

So he's paranoid so he should be ignored?

He has a following, he's no different to a Muslim preacher asking for American's to be hunted. Should we ignore them if they are also paranoid?

No doubt he's also a tin foil hat wearing person also, of course those in the know release tinfoil hats only make the signals work better!

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/tin-foil-hats-actually-make-it-easier-for-the-government-to-track-your-thoughts/262998/

In 2005, a group of MIT students, prodded by "a desire to play with some expensive equipment," tested the effectiveness of foil helmets at blocking various radio frequencies. Using two layers of Reynolds aluminum foil, they constructed three helmet designs, dubbed the Classical, the Fez, and the Centurion, and then looked at the strength of the transmissions between a radio-frequency signal generator and a receiver antenna placed on various parts of their subjects' bare and helmet-covered heads.

The helmets shielded their wearers from radio waves over most of the tested spectrum (YouTube user Mrfixitrick likewise demonstrates the blocking power of his foil toque against his wireless modem) but, surprisingly, amplified certain frequencies: those in the 2.6 Ghz ( allocated for mobile communications and broadcast satellites) and 1.2 Ghz (allocated for aeronautical radionavigation and space-to-Earth and space-to-space satellites) bands.

While the MIT guys' tongue-in-cheek conclusion -- "the current helmet craze is likely to have been propagated by the Government, possibly with the involvement of the FCC" -- maybe goes a few steps too far, their study at least shows that foil helmets fail at, and even counteract, their intended purpose. That, or the students are aliens who fabricated these results in an effort to get you to take your perfectly functional helmet off.

Nodin

Cabaal wrote: »

So he's paranoid so he should be ignored?

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

Well to me equating a steel roof to not being spied on by the Government indicates being a header rather than paranoid within the boundaries of rationality or anything like it.. Also
"Other former neighbors told the AP that Dear hid food in the woods, sometimes lived in a cabin in North Carolina with no electricity or running water and said he made a living off selling prints of his uncle's paintings of Southern plantations and the Masters golf tournament.
James Russell, who lived near Dear's cabin told the AP that alleged gunman tended to avoid eye contact, but if he did communicate, he mostly rambled about things that didn't make sense. "If you talked to him, nothing with him was very cognitive," Russell said. "
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/planned-parenthood-shooting-suspect-made-comment-about-no-more-baby-n470706

robindch

Nodin wrote: »

[...] "If you talked to him, nothing with him was very cognitive [...]

That does not distinguish him from the other men and women running for the Republican presidential ticket.

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

That does not distinguish him from the other men and women running for the Republican presidential ticket.

True. I will therefore cite his lack of personal wealth to distinguish him from the people trying to get their hands on the red button.

The Black Oil

There's been some political grumblings over the past few days, election season and all that. Are we at a stage where a referendum is unavoidable, or is that just that Twitterverse talking?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The "kick to touch" from 'Classic Irish Politic' page one. Only to be dropped in the event of death and tragedy for a very short interlude.

The Black Oil

Well, the ruling from NI and subsequent media coverage will probably be fodder for complaints to the BAI. That's something, I guess.

The Black Oil

Graham Linehan linked to these, worth a read.

https://twitter.com/bryngreenwood/status/671168002906308608

https://twitter.com/bryngreenwood/status/671168333375492096

https://twitter.com/bryngreenwood/status/671169140862922752

recedite

MrPudding wrote: »

It will be interest to see what happens now. The law still stands. The court has simply said it is incompatible. Now there needs to be legislation to fix the incompatibility, but I am guessing the assembly will be in no hurry to pass it...
MrP

I think the judge has gone a bit further than that, he has said that the existing legislation (1861 act) could or should be "read down" according to the findings of his court.

The judge considered whether sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Act could be read down to ensure that no offence is committed in respect of terminations of FFAs and pregnancies due to sexual crime before the foetus is able to exist independently of the mother because such actions are not unlawful given his findings. He said there is a strong argument that any decision to prosecute in such cases would be an abuse of the law given the court’s conclusion that the law is disproportionate....

AFAIK this means a new interpretation is possible of existing laws. Or to put it another way, this judgement itself could now be considered a kind of precedent in law.
That would put abortion of rape/FFA cases in NI on a very similar legal footing to abortion where the mothers life was at substantial risk in ROI after the x-case. Since 1992, in ROI abortion was "not unlawful" where a suicide or threat to life of the mother could be demonstrated, even though the legislation was not updated for 2 decades. Admittedly that was not a lot of use to pregnant women over that period of time, when most doctors in ROI chose to play it safe and opt out, given the "chilling effect" caused by this lack of legal clarity.

It seems that the Good Friday Agreement is exercising a sort of quasi-constitutional control in NI that is different to other parts of the UK. The judge also noted that..

Section 6(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (“the 1998 Act”), which followed the Good Friday Agreement, made it clear that it was outside the legislative competence of the Assembly to pass any provisions which were “incompatible with any of the Convention Rights”. Mr Justice Horner commented that there can therefore be no dispute that one of the assurances given to the people of Northern Ireland was that their human rights as enshrined in the Convention would be protected under this new constitutional settlement:

I'm assuming that this "mini-constitution" prevents the interpretation/enforcement of any existing legislation which is incompatible with the Convention. Hence the obligation to "read down" existing laws.

From the summary of the judgement, he has invited more submissions on this issue before the judgement is finalised.

He noted, however, that no party to the application made the case that it was possible to read the legislation in such a way nor was any argument addressed to the court about whether prosecution in such circumstances would be an abuse of the law. Given that the court did not hear the parties on these issues, Mr Justice Horner said it was only proper that he gave them a further opportunity to make submissions before concluding his view.

But it also said somewhere that this hearing was actually held last June and only released now, so maybe it is final at this stage?

Shrap

Fantastic interview with Mara Clarke (Abortion Support Network) on Pat Kenny Show just now. Followed by an interview with a consultant Obstetrician and Surgeon at a Clinic in the Greater Manchester Area (didn't get his name). So refreshing to hear such straight-forward and non-judgmental interviews - well worth a listen.

http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/The_Pat_Kenny_Show/The_Pat_Kenny_Show_Highlights/115528/

PopePalpatine

I suppose the BAI must be overwhelmed with callers screeching about "balance" right now. :rolleyes:

robindch

A guy explains that there are no such things as "fatal foetal abnormalities". The guy is a politician. From Ireland. And said it yesterday.

http://www.thejournal.ie/senator-paul-bradford-fatal-foetal-abnormality-2477902-Dec2015

Mr Bradford wrote:

There are no such babies as babies with fatal foetal abnormalities. There are babies with serious, profound life-threatening and life-limiting conditions but they are still human beings.

Hardly worth pointing out that the first and second sentences are mutually exclusive.

Shrap

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I suppose the BAI must be overwhelmed with callers screeching about "balance" right now. :rolleyes:

They did carefully balance the texts read out after the interviews. Equal number of fors and againsts. Would love to know the actual percentage of each sent in to the show.