Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

This item tracking Senators and TD's positions on repeal the 8th as an issue may be useful. I'm assuming it'll be available and updated by the journalist ONLY as the referedum date get's nearer.... https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/referendum-tracker.

Interesting, but their personal opinion is not entirely relevant at the moment.
First of all the govt. has to draft the wording of the proposed referendum. Following that, enough TDs have to vote for the referendum. They could do that whether they were pro-life or pro-choice, so I think its a foregone conclusion that the referendum bill will pass.

Supposing the people then vote to repeal the 8th. Then the politician's opinion becomes more relevant, because they could be voting in new legislation.
Its all a bit "up in the air" at the moment though.

seamus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They'll wait for that SC judgement before committing, but I'm convinced that a simple deletion of the 8th isn't enough - repeal and replacement with a statement giving a positive right to abortion under conditions set by law is far preferable.

That's always been my understanding. And though the "simple repeal" notion is the one that's been put out there, I don't see how that prevents Iona and the rest of the usual suspects from launching endless constitutional challenges.

The only good long-term solution is to replace the eighth with an article that provides the Dail the power to legislate. That eliminates any possibility for challenge.

aloyisious wrote: »

I assume the wording of P.O.L.D.P.A [where mention of the life of pregnant women is made, and also of medical people needed to certify the medical needs of pregnant women are concerned - and any criminal sanctions in it] might need adjustment as well if one is to put in another amendment in the constitution giving pregnant women the right, above that presently equally given to the unborn, so that POLDPA provisions don't clash with any new amendment to our superior law. I might be wrong in said assumption.

Functionally the constitution overrides anything in law. If the POLDPA were to clash with the constitution, then for all intents and purposes the conflicting part of the POLDPA is rendered void and ignored.

But usually that just creates limbo, not clarity.

Most likely a new proposed POLDPA will be drafted in advance of the referendum, to provide clarity on what the expected situation will be afterwards. This is what was done for the Marriage Equality ref.

NuMarvel

seamus wrote: »

That's always been my understanding. And though the "simple repeal" notion is the one that's been put out there, I don't see how that prevents Iona and the rest of the usual suspects from launching endless constitutional challenges.

The only good long-term solution is to replace the eighth with an article that provides the Dail the power to legislate. That eliminates any possibility for challenge.

My concern with a provision like that is that it eliminates any possibility of challenge by anyone. So if there's a flaw in the legislation, or a future government decides to restrict or even completely repeal access to abortion, then there's no recourse to the courts.

As for the possibility of challenges from anti-repealers, while certainly possible, but it's not as simple as just turning up at the courts. You have to show you have standing to bring the case in the first place. In other words, you have to show that the law affects you personally or is of such public importance to warrant overturning this. A woman who wanted to challenge the PLDP Act back in 2014 was told this when she gave notification of a challenge, but as far as I can see, she never actually brought it.

All that said, I'd still vote for this change if it's what was on the ballot paper. It's just that straight forward repeal would be my preference.

seamus

NuMarvel wrote: »

My concern with a provision like that is that it eliminates any possibility of challenge by anyone. So if there's a flaw in the legislation, or a future government decides to restrict or even completely repeal access to abortion, then there's no recourse to the courts.

That's understandable; but moving competency into the Oireachtas does leave future legislation much easier to challenge - and ultimately to change.

At present any challenge to our abortion laws on the basis of human rights infringements or violation of EU treaties can be met with a shoulder shrug - it's in the constitution, nothing we can do about it.

If it's purely in law, then legislators cannot sit on their hands and blame the constitution.

I don't think there is a perfect solution here. Ultimately all law is fluid according to the whims of the people. But at the very least if the competency is explicitly removed from the constitution, then it can be far more fluid, and doesn't take 2 generations to initiate change.

NuMarvel

seamus wrote: »

That's understandable; but moving competency into the Oireachtas does leave future legislation much easier to challenge - and ultimately to change.

At present any challenge to our abortion laws on the basis of human rights infringements or violation of EU treaties can be met with a shoulder shrug - it's in the constitution, nothing we can do about it.

If it's purely in law, then legislators cannot sit on their hands and blame the constitution.

I don't think there is a perfect solution here. Ultimately all law is fluid according to the whims of the people. But at the very least if the competency is explicitly removed from the constitution, then it can be far more fluid, and doesn't take 2 generations to initiate change.

Don't forget, it took 20 years to legislate for the X Case, so even in the absence of constitutional impediments, there's no guarantee of speedy change. The government only started the process of changing the law because of an ECHR case, and were it not for the public's reaction to the death of Savita Halapanavaar, I think they'd have dragged that process out for another 2 or 3 years if they could.

That said, I can see your logic, in that it would give governments one less excuse for not changing the law and if that's what was on the ballot paper, I'd tick Yes with no reservations.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

I assume the wording of P.O.L.D.P.A [where mention of the life of pregnant women is made, and also of medical people needed to certify the medical needs of pregnant women are concerned - and any criminal sanctions in it] might need adjustment as well if one is to put in another amendment in the constitution giving pregnant women the right, above that presently equally given to the unborn, so that POLDPA provisions don't clash with any new amendment to our superior law. I might be wrong in said assumption.

Once the 8th is repealed, POLDPA becomes unconstitutional and the first act of government should be to repeal POLDPA and replace it with legislation permitting abortion.

Peregrinus

NuMarvel wrote: »

Don't forget, it took 20 years to legislate for the X Case, so even in the absence of constitutional impediments, there's no guarantee of speedy change. The government only started the process of changing the law because of an ECHR case, and were it not for the public's reaction to the death of Savita Halapanavaar, I think they'd have dragged that process out for another 2 or 3 years if they could.

What you say is correct. But I think there's a difference between the government legislating in response to a court ruling or similar, which can take years or decades, and the government legislating in response to the passage of a referendum which it itself has initiated, which typically happens very quickly.

lazygal

There was a referendum on extending the Seanad electorate in the late 1970s which was passed by the people and every government since has ignored the outcome.

Odhinn

Martin pulls a fast one?
"If I’m asked my opinion during the campaign, I’ll give it, but I don’t see myself campaigning,” Martin told The Sunday Times. “I think it will be a different type of campaign. Given the personal nature of the issue, I’m not sure people will want to take direction from politicians. The referendum commission is going to be an important source of information.”
http://www.broadsheet.ie/page/2/

aloyisious

Odhinn wrote: »

Martin pulls a fast one?
"If I’m asked my opinion during the campaign, I’ll give it, but I don’t see myself campaigning,” Martin told The Sunday Times. “I think it will be a different type of campaign. Given the personal nature of the issue, I’m not sure people will want to take direction from politicians. The referendum commission is going to be an important source of information.”
http://www.broadsheet.ie/page/2/

The jury is out on this one; whether it was a master-stroke pulled on Leo or whether he knew there would be a FF backbench reaction [you don't have the right to make up your own mind though you allow us to make up our own minds - you must let us make up your mind - and speech-content - for you] so stormed their gates first. The party meeting called [for] by the Kilkenny TD about MM's act should be interesting in it's result and who turn's up at it. It's be interesting to see if many back what is a pre-referendum attack on the peoples decision and their right to make it by way of FF TD's stating that they will NOT accept the referendum result if it's not th their liking.

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

Odhinn wrote: »

Martin pulls a fast one?
"If I’m asked my opinion during the campaign, I’ll give it, but I don’t see myself campaigning,” Martin told The Sunday Times. “I think it will be a different type of campaign. Given the personal nature of the issue, I’m not sure people will want to take direction from politicians. The referendum commission is going to be an important source of information.”
http://www.broadsheet.ie/page/2/

The jury is out on this one; whether it was a master-stroke pulled on Leo or whether he knew there would be a FF backbench reaction [you don't have the right to make up your own mind though you allow us to make up our own minds - you must let us make up your mind - and speech-content - for you] so stormed their gates first. The party meeting called [for] by the Kilkenny TD about MM's act should be interesting in it's result and who turn's up at it. It's be interesting to see if many back what is a pre-referendum attack on the peoples decision and their right to make it by way of FF TD's stating that they will NOT accept the referendum result if it's not th their liking.

It’s not clear to me what the malcontents actually want. They’re not looking for martins head, they accept his right to adopt a pro-choice position...seems like a lot of them are just miffed he didn’t do the same plamassing with them as Leo is doing with waverers in fg. Martin probably decided that would be a waste of time and the best way to announce his position would be to spring it on the party without warning...

Cabaal

Down Syndrome Ireland's response to exploitation of children and adults with downs recently,

Loafing Oaf

Cabaal wrote: »

Down Syndrome Ireland's response to exploitation of children and adults with downs recently,

Catch-22 for the pro-lifers: if they accede to this request, they'll dropping one of the main planks of their campaign, but if they ignore it they'll face the wrath of DSI, not a good place to be if you're trying to win over the centre ground...

aloyisious

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Catch-22 for the pro-lifers: if they accede to this request, they'll dropping one of the main planks of their campaign, but if they ignore it they'll face the wrath of DSI, not a good place to be if you're trying to win over the centre ground...

Plus Mattie McGrath impartially advising both sides against using the syndrome in the fight over retention of the 8th.

Hotblack Desiato

In fairness if Mattie McGrath is asking people to do something, most reasonable people will do the opposite

Cabaal

So Leo is supporting law changes, it appears no major party leader supports the Pro Life groups now

Loafing Oaf

Cabaal wrote: »

So Leo is supporting law changes, it appears no major party leader supports the Pro Life groups now

But hasn't quite said he fully supports the committee's recommendations. Still keeping us 'in suspense'...

Mr.H

Cabaal wrote:

So Leo is supporting law changes, it appears no major party leader supports the Pro Life groups now

I hate that term pro life.

Pro abortion people are also pro life. Some of them believe that a mother's life shouldn't be risked if there is an issue with the pregnancy.

I wouldn't want my girlfriend to have an abortion because one day we want to have kids. But if there was complications and the pregnancy wasn't far along I would do everything in my power to get her an abortion.

This isn't about religion. I couldn't give a toss what pretend god figure wants my girlfriend to suffer.

mrmac

Mr.H wrote: »

Pro abortion people are also pro life.

Many Pro Life folks consider themselves to also be Pro Choice.

Choose:

• Do not have sex
• Contraception (male & female)
• So called 'Morning After Pill' (I assume this is also called the 'Abortion Pill'?)
• Have the baby - keep it
• Have the baby - fostering
• Have the baby - adoption

Mr.H wrote: »

Some of them believe that a mother's life shouldn't be risked if there is an issue with the pregnancy.

I thought that was what the POLDPA was supposed to do?
I know it's not perfect, but couldn't it be made more robust instead?
I don't think anyone would argue against the right to life of the mother in such circumstances.

Forgive my noobness on this issue - I'm trying to decide - for myself - which way to vote.

smacl

mrmac wrote: »

Many Pro Life folks consider themselves to also be Pro Choice

By pro-choice, most people are talking about leaving the choice up to the pregnant woman, whatever that choice might be, rather than restricting her choices to suit someone else's moral or religious preferences. While all of the possible choices you list are valid, it is hardly an exhaustive list. If you were to list all the possible choices she might select, outside of abortion you also left out suicide, where she would rather die than go through with the pregnancy. If you prohibit safe abortion in this country, additional choices are abortion via online pills that places the woman's life in danger, and travel abroad to get an abortion in the UK, where back care in Ireland can be a cause of health issues.

I really hope the debates can get passed the poorly-named 'sides' and onto the real issues.

Taxonomy is not the rabbit hole that we need anyone going down imo.

aloyisious

Mattie McGrath thinks the latest abortion opinion polls are "contrived". https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/latest-abortion-polls-contrived-says-mattie-mcgrath-825097.html

Down with this sort of faking of opinion poll results

Hotblack Desiato

I am reminded of Brecht's quotation - the government must dissolve the people and elect another

Mattie and Ronan's world is falling apart. If the Irish people vote for abortion then anything, including dismantling the religious patronage model of education, is possible. Then the game really will be up for their lot.

lazygal

The churches will give up on abortion quicker than they'll give up the schools. They'll still be able to spread anti abortion rhetoric to generations.

aloyisious

The SC hearing next month got a mention in the 1PM RTE Radio news with an interview of an Irish constitutional law professor. The SC ruling may contain surprises. It could reject outright Justice Humphreys decision that the Unborn mentioned in the 8th is a child, with reference to his apprent inclusion of article 42.2 and his linking it with the 8th. Article 42.2 also lists the child having rights [but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child" - last line in the below]. That line mentions physical reasons when it come to [the state] protecting the child. Justice Humhreys ruling stated the unborn is a child. The 8th only makes reference to the unborn... The SC could rule there is a conflict between the 2 articles and rule that one or the other - maybe even both - needs revisiting for a change of wording or an outright deletion of one, possibly 42.2...

"42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.
The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.
In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child".

I can see the SC having to take it's time making a ruling, after submissions and considerations, to make sure they get it right, either by an across the board or a majority decision ruling. Any referendum may well be delayed to take account of any SC decision involving deletion/s or alterations of current articles...

However, as this particular issue on what is a child has yet to be decided on by the SC, mine above is only my non-law library opinion and reading at the moment.

One ? is does an/y SC decision on articles being faulty have to be across the board or by majority?

Cabaal

aloyisious, I heard some of this on RTE Radio 1,
Very interesting, its clear as day there are conflicts between the 8th and 42

If you take the view that a fetus is equal to a baby then from the text below along the state must take action

where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child".

So any women who attempts to travel for abortion must have action taken against them to stop them by the Irish state to safeguard the "child".

Either this MUST be enforced or it must be changed, anything else is ignoring our constitution

PhoenixParker

And if all fetuses are equivalent to babies then surely the 24 week provision with respect to maternity leave and maternity pay is also unconstitutional.

aloyisious

Cabaal wrote: »

aloyisious, I heard some of this on RTE Radio 1,
Very interesting, its clear as day there are conflicts between the 8th and 42

If you take the view that a fetus is equal to a baby then from the text below along the state must take action


So any women who attempts to travel for abortion must have action taken against them to stop them by the Irish state to safeguard the "child".

Either this MUST be enforced or it must be changed, anything else is ignoring our constitution

That possibly is part of the thinking by Justice Humhreys, leading to his ruling, but probably not included word for word of his actual chain of thought when he was formulating the wording of his ruling, as it would probably be too prescriptive and repugnant to others at the least. Pardon my carefulness of opinion wording.

Cabaal

So its happening, but no date yet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VJvaWTU_gM

aloyisious

The word "rare" in reference to abortion used by Leo AFTER whatever legislation may be brought in is questionable. It might just be referring to numerity of actual abortion operations here, ratio-compared to the numbers of women travelling abroad for abortions and those women also using the abortifacient pill without medical supervision. I don't see either of those last two existing practices dropping-off in numbers if the abortions to be done here under whatever is legislated for are to be rare.

There is another angle when it comes to legislation that will be brought into the Oireachtas by the Govt and that is members of the Govt who, as TD's using their freedom of voting choice, choose to vote NAY. That's OK and agreed upon by all sides. It's the BUT if a MINISTER chooses to say at any Govt meeting or publicly that he/she will vote against the Govt bill and/or will campaign publicly against any such legislation being brought into law [both separate to the vote freedom given to TD's and Senators] I'm wondering what'll happen then.