Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

Swiftly done to death.

And so both sides, the victors and the martyrs, retired to the Dail bar, happy with their performances.
Meanwhile the CA continues happily gnawing its bone outside, oblivious to the rumpus that occurred inside the House.

I love happy endings

aloyisious

I saw the new Ad for Carphone Warehouse oo a bus-shelter making a play on the words "We're Pro-choice"" to sell mobile phones. I'm waiting, almost, for concerned members of the public to pick it up wrong and start a "boycott Carphone Warehouse" in the belief that it's promoting activities to lead to the deletion of Amendment 8.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj36YbayYPQAhVEK8AKHRuyClkQFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abortionrightscampaign.ie%2F2016%2F10%2F24%2Fwere-pro-choice-carphone-warehouse-advertisements-what-do-you-make-of-it%2F&usg=AFQjCNFSHEPJgCR6cTrthzAYV8rBRbRjDw

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I saw the new Ad for Carphone Warehouse oo a bus-shelter making a play on the words "We're Pro-choice"" to sell mobile phones. I'm waiting, almost, for concerned members of the public to pick it up wrong and start a "boycott Carphone Warehouse" in the belief that it's promoting activities to lead to the deletion of Amendment 8.

Well... your link is to a pro choice website busily identifying the campaign with their own as being 'the next big thing', so it's not beyond the realms of imagination that even if the pro choice campaigners are claiming the advertising 'belittles our efforts' whilst using it's existence to promote their agenda, it's eventually going to garner some commentary from the other side. It seems rather improbable that such commentary will be positive.

In the meantime I'm sure the advertiser is enormously sanguine about the discussion of their advert by both sides of a very vocal debate....

expectationlost

Denise O'Donoghue @deniseodonoghue
1d https://twitter.com/deniseodonoghue/status/792346762707083264

Pro-life protest at Carphone Warehouse in Cork. Don't think they got the memo that Carphone Warehouse are just pro-themselves.

I nearly think carphonewarehouse hired actors to protest but people say they see regular anti-abortion protesters there.


I despair of this

Dr J @JoanneOSulliva6
1d
@deniseodonoghue I've been needing a new phone. Can't wait to cross this picket. @CarphoneIE take my money please! ������

as much as those protesters

recedite

It seems tacky, manipulative and tasteless. But then, a lot of the most successful marketing campaigns are.

magicbastarder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2firijxQOo

keane2097

It's never not a good time to see what Stew thinks

aloyisious

The Ads been pulled, seem's it's now "your choice" according to the Brendan O'Connor show on RTE discussing the original Ad.

aloyisious

Unusual use of words - [A High Court judge refused to grant the HSE orders forcing a pregnant woman to have a Caesarean section (CS) against her will so as to vindicate the right to life of her unborn child, it has emerged] - mentioned in this Irish Times report of an "in-camera" court case heard in recent weeks where a judge refused to give the HSE an order forcing a woman to have a caesarean section delivery against her will, as the 8th does not seem to have been invoked by either side in the case.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/judge-refused-to-order-woman-to-undergo-caesarean-section-1.2852130

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Unusual use of words - [A High Court judge refused to grant the HSE orders forcing a pregnant woman to have a Caesarean section (CS) against her will so as to vindicate the right to life of her unborn child, it has emerged] - mentioned in this Irish Times report of an "in-camera" court case heard in recent weeks where a judge refused to give the HSE an order forcing a woman to have a caesarean section delivery against her will, as the 8th does not seem to have been invoked by either side in the case.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/judge-refused-to-order-woman-to-undergo-caesarean-section-1.2852130

Given the risk of uterine rupture was considered to be less than 3 percent, and even in the case of uterine rupture actually occuring the child is very rarely at risk of death, it seems like a sensible ruling, particularly given his reported statement "The courts’ right to intervene in a parent’s decision in relation to an unborn child is no greater than the right to intervene in relation to born children".

Though I'd suggest that when the report says "Her refusal to follow medical advice in the context of her unborn child raised a more difficult issue because of Article 40.3.3, which protects the right to life of the unborn, he said. The increased risk to the unborn did not justify a court order forcing the woman to have the CS, he ruled." it indicates the 8th was most assuredly a consideration by the Judge... in fact if the HSE were seeking orders "forcing a pregnant woman to have a Caesarean section (CS) against her will so as to vindicate the right to life of her unborn child" then they were invoking the 8th, since the right to life of her unborn child resides nowhere else.

rainbow kirby

Makes you wonder just how much coercion goes on behind closed doors - Irish maternity hospitals not exactly being paragons of respecting bodily autonomy...

Absolam

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Makes you wonder just how much coercion goes on behind closed doors - Irish maternity hospitals not exactly being paragons of respecting bodily autonomy...

I suspect it may depend less on a desire to interfere with bodily autonomy and more on a desire to minimise the risk to patients... which is kind of what doctors are supposed to do?

expectationlost

aloyisious wrote: »

The Ads been pulled, seem's it's now "your choice" according to the Brendan O'Connor show on RTE discussing the original Ad.

they got what they wanted

aloyisious

expectationlost wrote: »

they got what they wanted

Free Ads on RTE and other media outlets

rainbow kirby

Absolam wrote: »

I suspect it may depend less on a desire to interfere with bodily autonomy and more on a desire to minimise the risk to patients... which is kind of what doctors are supposed to do?

There are plenty of things done routinely in hospitals in Ireland that are not supported by evidence based practice - routine amniotomy is on the Do Not Perform list according to NICE in the UK, some of the lowest VBAC and breastfeeding rates in the world, active management of labour shows a complete misunderstanding of the process and is a relic of the 60s..

volchitsa

Not only an unnecessarily low rate of VBAC but an excessively high rate of CS leading to higher numbers of women wanting VBAC, as well as the higher rates of complications that Cs has for women and babies than vaginal birth. (The WHO has pointed out this high rate of CS in Ireland for several years now.)

Absolam

rainbow kirby wrote: »

There are plenty of things done routinely in hospitals in Ireland that are not supported by evidence based practice - routine amniotomy is on the Do Not Perform list according to NICE in the UK, some of the lowest VBAC and breastfeeding rates in the world, active management of labour shows a complete misunderstanding of the process and is a relic of the 60s..

That seems to be avoiding the point; do you think the doctors weren't motivated by the risk to the patients, and were more concerned with infringing bodily autonomy?

recedite

The pertinent point in that case was that the mother was not trying to abort the foetus. She stupidly thought she knew better than the obstetrican's, refused to agree to the caesarian, caused the hospital a lot of trouble and legal expense, and then finally changed her mind and agreed it was best after all.
The 8th was invoked in the sense that

Her refusal to follow medical advice in the context of her unborn child raised a more difficult issue because of Article 40.3.3, which protects the right to life of the unborn, he said. The increased risk to the unborn did not justify a court order forcing the woman to have the CS the foetus

It would also be "a step too far" to force all parents to vaccinate their kids, even if the medical experts suggested that would be a good idea. If there is no deliberate attempt by the parent to harm the child, it is difficult for the state to intervene.

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

The pertinent point in that case was that the mother was not trying to abort the foetus. She stupidly thought she knew better than the obstetrican's, refused to agree to the caesarian, caused the hospital a lot of trouble and legal expense, and then finally changed her mind and agreed it was best after all.

The woman believed seeking a natural labour would expose her to a 3 per cent risk of uterine rupture and the risk of uterine rupture from an elective CS was between 0-1 per cent. The obstetric evidence guessed the risk from a trial of labour could be higher but that was only a guess as a natural delivery had never happened in an Irish hospital after three CS, the judge noted.

3 per cent doesn't sound very high risk http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/judge-refused-to-order-woman-to-undergo-caesarean-section-1.2852130

robindch

The American Civil Liberties Union has released a report looking into the denial of medically-necessary care at hospitals controlled by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. That's around one in six of US hospital beds.

QuackWatch wrote:

• The directives prohibit a range of reproductive health services, including contraception, sterilization, many infertility treatments, and abortion, even when a woman's health or life is jeopardized by a pregnancy.
• of hospitals adhere in part or in full to these directives.
• of these prohibit staff physicians from performing an abortion or sterilization even when this denial of care puts a patient at serious risk.
• states have laws that shield providers who follow the guidelines from liability that otherwise would be considered malpractice.
• federal laws and regulations require all hospitals to provide emergency care, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should systematically apply these regulations to Catholic Hospitals.

The full report is here:

https://www.aclu.org/feature/health-care-denied

aloyisious

Something tells me that if Don and Co start resetting the laws in the US about abortion in January next, there'll be a lot of cross-border travel (north and south) by US female citizens. It's likely Canada might be the favoured choice, given how Wikipedia states that it has abortion legal at all stages of pregnancy.

Absolam

And of course no need to negotiate a wall....

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

And of course no need to negotiate a wall....

Although, in fairness, they would hardly be traveling cross country anyway

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

Something tells me that if Don and Co start resetting the laws in the US about abortion in January next, there'll be a lot of cross-border travel (north and south) by US female citizens. It's likely Canada might be the favoured choice, given how Wikipedia states that it has abortion legal at all stages of pregnancy.

There's one Supreme Court vacancy outstanding, now that there's a (nominal) Repubnicnut in the White House no doubt a couple more SC judges will now feel safe to retire which they didn't under the what they'd call the h o u s e n i g g e r Obama presidency, in the knowledge they'll now be succeeded by much younger anti-choice bible bashers who will do their best to subvert the US constitution for decades to come.

The Republicnuts should be called out on this - their opposition to the Obama administration is openly racist.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

no doubt a couple more SC judges will now feel safe to retire which they didn't under the what they'd call the h o u s e n i g g e r Obama presidency, in the knowledge they'll now be succeeded by much younger anti-choice bible bashers who will do their best to subvert the US constitution for decades to come.

Wow! Which of them said that about his presidency?

MrPudding

aloyisious wrote: »

Something tells me that if Don and Co start resetting the laws in the US about abortion in January next, there'll be a lot of cross-border travel (north and south) by US female citizens. It's likely Canada might be the favoured choice, given how Wikipedia states that it has abortion legal at all stages of pregnancy.

Undoubtedly there will be increased traffic to Canada and probably Mexico, but it will be a similar position to Ireland. Abortions for those that can afford to travel.

MrP

Absolam

Apparently plenty of poor people already cross the border with Mexico, so it might be less those with the means to travel, and more those with the inclination to avoid the law?

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There's one Supreme Court vacancy outstanding, now that there's a (nominal) Repubnicnut in the White House no doubt a couple more SC judges will now feel safe to retire which they didn't under the what they'd call the h o u s e n i g g e r Obama presidency, in the knowledge they'll now be succeeded by much younger anti-choice bible bashers who will do their best to subvert the US constitution for decades to come.

The Republicnuts should be called out on this - their opposition to the Obama administration is openly racist.

I'm waiting to see who Don has in his new Admin, in say the health dept. It seems Don has Ken Blackwell from the "Family research Council in his transition team......

The FRC promotes traditional family values, by advocating and lobbying for socially conservative policies. It opposes and lobbies against LGBT rights (such as same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, and LGBT adoption), abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research and pornography. Tony Perkins is the current president of the FRC.

I can't help but laugh at the divorce bit and Ken's advisory role to Don.

Absolam

Conservative President elect has conservative advisors? Well... that's a shocker!

fran17

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm waiting to see who Don has in his new Admin, in say the health dept. It seems Don has Ken Blackwell from the "Family research Council in his transition team......

The FRC promotes traditional family values, by advocating and lobbying for socially conservative policies. It opposes and lobbies against LGBT rights (such as same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, and LGBT adoption), abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research and pornography. Tony Perkins is the current president of the FRC.

I can't help but laugh at the divorce bit and Ken's advisory role to Don.

Curious to see why you included pornography in reference to his oppositions.You feel its something that should be promoted and lobbied for?