Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Rather depends whether the funding is covert or transparent and whether those trying to influence local politics play by local rules. Given the furore surrounding Trump's election and possible Russian influence, it seems clear that most people find covert foreign influence unacceptable. This is similarly true of human rights issues as SIPO's attitude to Soros illustrates. I'd also be concerned about local voices being drowned our by well funded international lobby groups, which very much seems to be the case in this debate. Democracy really shouldn't be about who has the deepest pockets, which is very much the American model.

I take your point about covert funding - I object to that. But I don't object to covert foreign funding in particular. Covertness is a problem; foreign-ness isn't.

I'd make an exception for funding sourced directly or indirectly from a foreign government - that's highly objectionable.

As for the "deepest pocket" point, yes, campaign funding limits may be appropriate. But I don't think the limits should distinguish between foreign- and domestic-sourced funding.

I also think that, with a referendum campaign at least, there's a practical issue with funding limits. The winner in a refernendum is not a person or a party but an idea. Obviously you and I might both support the same idea and work to advance it independently, in an entirely unco-ordinated way, and possibly not even being aware of one another's efforts. In that situation, is any kind of global funding limit possible? But if we just confine funding limits to funds routed through, or efforts co-ordinated with, an officially-designated campaign, then the limits become trivially easy to evade. (As we are seeing with the revelations about the Brexit campaigning in the UK.)

I don't know that there is an easy solution to this problem.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I take your point about covert funding - I object to that. But I don't object to covert foreign funding in particular. Covertness is a problem; foreign-ness isn't.

I'd make an exception for funding sourced directly or indirectly from a foreign government - that's highly objectionable.

As for the "deepest pocket" point, yes, campaign funding limits may be appropriate. But I don't think the limits should distinguish between foreign- and domestic-sourced funding.

I disagree with that insofar as by allowing large amounts of foreign money into a local debate, on what is a local issue, local voices get drowned out as they cannot compete in terms of resources they can dedicate to campaigning. In a debate such as this, local concerns get swamped by conflicting, and IMHO rather extreme, foreign interests. If these foreign interests are not representative of local sentiment I would dispute that they should have a voice. Most certainly they should not have the loudest voice. This is after all an Irish debate that solely concerns Irish citizens.

I don't know that there is an easy solution to this problem.

I think it is important to differentiate between principles and practicalities here. While there may be no easy solution at present that is no reason to abandon those principles. It seems very much as this type of rather insidious targeted influence through social media is coming under increasing widespread scrutiny and my feeling is that it will become heavily constrained in the near future.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I disagree with that insofar as by allowing large amounts of foreign money into a local debate, on what is a local issue, local voices get drowned out as they cannot compete in terms of resources they can dedicate to campaigning. In a debate such as this, local concerns get swamped by conflicting, and IMHO rather extreme, foreign interests. If these foreign interests are not representative of local sentiment I would dispute that they should have a voice. Most certainly they should not have the loudest voice. This is after all an Irish debate that solely concerns Irish citizens.

The only people who actually have a vote in the referendum are Irish citizens - resident Irish citizens, in fact. The only way anyone can influence the outcome of the referendum is by advancing arguments which appeal to resident citizens.

Obviously, it's up to the voter to decide which arguments he finds appealing or convincing, but if he is minded to find arguments advanced by somebody who happens to be, e.g, French convincing, I don't see why the state should try to influence his judgment by shielding him from those arguments or limiting his exposure to them. It's his responsibility to evaluate the arguments. The nationality of the person advancing the arguments is probably not that material a factor in most people's evaluation - that would be kind of an ad hominem evaluation - but, even if it is, that only means that he should know who is funding the promotion of the argument.

smacl wrote: »

I think it is important to differentiate between principles and practicalities here. While there may be no easy solution at present that is no reason to abandon those principles. It seems very much as this type of rather insidious targeted influence through social media is coming under increasing widespread scrutiny and my feeling is that it will become heavily constrained in the near future.

I agree. I think there are huge practical issues here, as we grapple with new technology and new issues. And, difficult as it may be, we do have to grapple with them.

I just think it's a distraction to get hung up on the nationality of the people employing new technologies and techniques to influence political discourse. What is alleged against Cambridge Analytica and the like is gravely worrying, and we need to take as effective measures as we can to control it. But the reason for worrying is unconnected with the fact that the people behind CA are not Irish.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Obviously, it's up to the voter to decide which arguments he finds appealing or convincing, but if he is minded to find arguments advanced by somebody who happens to be, e.g, French convincing, I don't see why the state should try to influence his judgment by shielding him from those arguments or limiting his exposure to them.

It is a matter of balance. Where both sides of the debate are being largely funded with foreign money, and opaque accompanying agendas, the debate actually becomes one between those with the money at the expense of local voices. Where those with the money are foreign fundamentalists who's views are not representative of local views by what right should they be allowed influence the debate, beyond waving a fistful of dollars? While it clearly happens in practise, is cultural domination by those with the most spending power acceptable in principle?

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

It is a matter of balance. Where both sides of the debate are being largely funded with foreign money, and opaque accompanying agendas, the debate actually becomes one between those with the money at the expense of local voices. Where those with the money are foreign fundamentalists who's views are not representative of local views by what right should they be allowed influence the debate, beyond waving a fistful of dollars? While it clearly happens in practise, is cultural domination by those with the most spending power acceptable in principle?

I don't think we can look for funding limits which depend on whether the views being advanced are "representative of local views". The whole point of a referendum campaign is that it's an opportunity for change people's views; it would be profoundly undemocratic to try to limit or silence the voices of those on the basis that the views they express are not already popular. Similarly I don't think we get to restrict or silence views because we label them "fundamentalist".

Campaign funding limits, I get, so that the better-funded views don't get to eclipse the less-well-funded. Similarly, ensuring a level playing field by "channelling" campaigning - e.g providing election/referendum broadcast time while banning paid advertising on television - seems sound to me.

I don't know whether something similar is possible on facebook and the like. If Irish law forbade facebook from presenting paid stories on election/referendum issues to Irish viewers during a referendum period (in much the way that it prevents Irish broadcasters from accepting paid election ads) would that be enforceable? It's worth a try, anyway.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think we can look for funding limits which depend on whether the views being advanced are "representative of local views". The whole point of a referendum campaign is that it's an opportunity for change people's views; it would be profoundly undemocratic to try to limit or silence the voices of those on the basis that the views they express are not already popular. Similarly I don't think we get to restrict or silence views because we label them "fundamentalist".

It is not so much that the views are unrepresentative or fundamentalist as that they represent foreign interference in local politics and culture. My understanding was that part of SIPO's remit was to prevent this kind of funding of foreign influence in local debate, as was seen with Soros. As a society we consider this type of interference unacceptable.

I don't know whether something similar is possible on facebook and the like. If Irish law forbade facebook from presenting paid stories on election/referendum issues to Irish viewers during a referendum period (in much the way that it prevents Irish broadcasters from accepting paid election ads) would that be enforceable? It's worth a try, anyway.

The technology is no doubt malleable, what we're seeing is the dance that the likes of facebook are making between meeting changing national standards and the demands of those that pay for influence. Same as any kind of marketing and advertising really, just that newer technology affords a much finer focus.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

It is not so much that the views are unrepresentative or fundamentalist as that they represent foreign interference in local politics and culture. My understanding was that part of SIPO's remit was to prevent this kind of funding of foreign influence in local debate, as was seen with Soros. As a society we consider this type of interference unacceptable.

I don't. But maybe I'm just weird.

smacl wrote: »

The technology is no doubt malleable, what we're seeing is the dance that the likes of facebook are making between meeting changing national standards and the demands of those that pay for influence. Same as any kind of marketing and advertising really, just that newer technology affords a much finer focus.

It's not just that. It's that plus, in the interconnected digitised world, regulating the use of this finely-focussed technology at the national level is difficult. With a "legit" player like Facebook, you have some chance of getting them to respect Irish campaigning laws by, e.g, threatening to prevent them from collecting payments from Irish customers wishing to place ads, or otherwise interfering with their commercial interests in Ireland. But with Russian bot factories placing bogus tweets to circulate plausible but fake "news" to people identified as malleable or gullible - I agree we have to defend ourselves against that, but it's not easy to see how.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't. But maybe I'm just weird.

I see it as cultural imperialism, which is difficult to avoid but unhealthy nonetheless.

It's not just that. It's that plus, in the interconnected digitised world, regulating the use of this finely-focussed technology at the national level is difficult. With a "legit" player like Facebook, you have some chance of getting them to respect Irish campaigning laws by, e.g, threatening to prevent them from collecting payments from Irish customers wishing to place ads, or otherwise interfering with their commercial interests in Ireland. But with Russian bot factories placing bogus tweets to circulate plausible but fake "news" to people identified as malleable or gullible - I agree we have to defend ourselves against that, but it's not easy to see how.

Defences against various types of bot attacks are becoming increasingly well understood, e.g. Boards DDoS protection system, albeit quite complex and something of an arms race. For more sensitive data we already tend to see certificates being exchanged to verify source and hashes to prevent tampering, I'd guess it won't be long before we see this being extended to all media and advertising.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Both sides in a referendum campaign will be spending money in an attempt to influence the vote. Only one side can win. Are those on the other side therefore eejits?

Together for Yes have only just launched and they're hoping to raise €500,000, subject to SIPO rules.

Save the 8th have engaged a dubious (and very expensive) firm outside the state to 'influence' voters online and can fund this using potentially unlimited funds from ouside the state without a thing SIPO can do about it.

You seem to think these scenarios are somehow equivalent in some way?

Also, sarcasm fail on your part. It's obvious those pouring resources into the anti-choice campaign are expecting a return on their money. The extent of the influence they will purchase remains to be seen.

The irony is that you appear to see nothing wrong with money flowing out of large countries into small ones in an attempt to buy a decisive influence, while living in a country so insular it doesn't even allow dual citizenship holders to sit in its parliament.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

The nationality of the person advancing the arguments is probably not that material a factor in most people's evaluation - that would be kind of an ad hominem evaluation

The American or Russian bot accounts don't say they're American or Russian, they pretend to be Irish. Plenty of them spring up on Boards.

but, even if it is, that only means that he should know who is funding the promotion of the argument.

Exactly and it is making a mockery of our political funding legislation.

As a society we believe that the influence of money on politics should be restricted, regulated and above board - and the influence of foreign money should be particularly tightly restrained - and have laws in place setting this out.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't object to covert foreign funding in particular. Covertness is a problem; foreign-ness isn't....
I'd make an exception for funding sourced directly or indirectly from a foreign government - that's highly objectionable.

The practical issue with your exception is that a foreign govt. might channel money through an NGO or other intermediary(which you probably already thought of, as you used the word "indirectly" there).

You haven't really established why its different in principle either. For example, why is it OK for George Soros to use cash to promote his agenda, but not OK for Vlad Putin to do it?
Limiting the amount of money from any one source seems a more sensible restriction (in principle), even if that is not always a practical solution.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The only people who actually have a vote in the referendum are Irish citizens - resident Irish citizens, in fact. The only way anyone can influence the outcome of the referendum is by advancing arguments which appeal to resident citizens.

Its a good point, and this important point tends to get lost amid all the more hysterical reporting.

smacl wrote: »

I see it as cultural imperialism, which is difficult to avoid but unhealthy nonetheless.

Well, that's nothing new. There are very few parts of the world that haven't been heavily westernised and influenced by American styles of dress, music, movies, internet content, language, attitudes. Its an ongoing process of subliminal globalisation and internationalisation.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Well, that's nothing new. There are very few parts of the world that haven't been heavily westernised and influenced by American styles of dress, music, movies, internet content, language, attitudes. Its an ongoing process of subliminal globalisation and internationalisation.

Bit of a jump from that to rather dubious pro-life groups trying to force a morality on us through legislation that they don't even have in in their own country. If I wanted to live my life according to a middle American bible belt ethos, I'd move to Bum Fork, West Virginia. I don't and I won't. Fork that! :pac:

recedite

smacl wrote: »

trying to force a morality on us through legislation that they don't even have in in their own country.

No, they are hoping to persuade Irish people not to abandon their own constitutional rights and obligations.

Loafing Oaf

smacl wrote: »

Bit of a jump from that to rather dubious pro-life groups trying to force a morality on us through legislation that they don't even have in in their own country.

Journalist Eamon Sweeney once pointed out the absurdity of Irish people mocking 'red' American states for the backwardness of their abortion laws, when our own are way more extreme than any of them...

aloyisious

Was there a sub-section 3 in section 3 of Article 40 of our constitution before 1983, or was it a brand new sub-section never before in the constitution? If not, was the unborn unprotected by 40.3.1 AND 40.3.2 of the constitution?

Was the introduction made to remove the lesser laws of Ireland [those changable by the Oireachtas] from responsibility in regard to abortion and put it beyond the remit of such laws?

Putting 40.3.3 into the constitution in 1983 by way of amendment seem's [at least] to imply there was a gap in protection of the right to life of the unborn from 1937 to 1983, that the right never existed in the constitution til then.

Edit. OK, I found this as an answer on Wiki.......... Abortion had been prohibited in Ireland by the Offences against the Person Act 1861, a statute of the United Kingdom which stayed in effect after independence in 1922. The Eighth Amendment was added to the Constitution by referendum in 1983 after concerns that laws prohibiting abortion could be threatened by legal action in a similar manner to laws prohibiting the importation of contraception.

Taking the above as correct mean's the amendment was entered into the constitution to prevent judges from making a ruling against the legislation barring abortion existing at the time and it had nothing to do with the Oireachtas or the Gov't changing said legislation.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland - Para Two on the link.

This - was there a irish court case in 1982 about the right to life of the unborn - is the question I inputted to the net:...

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

Ta for the reply, NuMarvel... T'was good to refresh my memory..... The woman near the start of the video relating how the idea of the amendment came into her mind verifies how it was to stymie any chance that the courts could make a ruling legalizing abortion. Get something into the constitution which would impede the constitutional guarantee given to the courts of freedom from interference from the Oireachtas in making decisions on the constitutionality of legislation, all with the backing of the Gov't of the day, the Oireachtas and the Eminence Grise as well.

It's no wonder that the AG of the day foresaw that it's wording would lead to trouble for the judiciary, and to medical doctors as well at the practical end, having to interpret the 8th in relation to their work.

NuMarvel

aloyisious wrote: »

Was there a sub-section 3 in section 3 of Article 40 of our constitution before 1983, or was it a brand new sub-section never before in the constitution? If not, was the unborn unprotected by 40.3.1 AND 40.3.2 of the constitution?

Was the introduction made to remove the lesser laws of Ireland [those changable by the Oireachtas] from responsibility in regard to abortion and put it beyond the remit of such laws?

Putting 40.3.3 into the constitution in 1983 by way of amendment seem's [at least] to imply there was a gap in protection of the right to life of the unborn from 1937 to 1983, that the right never existed in the constitution til then.

One of the speakers at the Citizens Assembly has a good briefing paper on it here.

Basically, sub-section 3 was new and didn't exist prior to the 1983 referendum. There hadn't been any definitive rulings about the rights of the unborn, though some judges had suggested in earlier cases these rights may exist.

What prompted calls for a constitutional provision was the 1970s McGee case in the Supreme Court that cited a constitutional right to marital privacy when overturning the ban on contraception. Anti-contraception campaigners were worried it would lead to a similar ruling if the abortion ban was challenged and came up with the idea of a constitutional amendment.

There's a short film about the history of the 8th here, including interviews with some of the original 8th campaigners.

Fintan O'Toole goes into some detail of the history of the original campaigners here too: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/why-ireland-became-the-only-country-in-the-democratic-world-to-have-a-constitutional-ban-on-abortion-1.1907610.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

No, they are hoping to persuade Irish people not to abandon their own constitutional rights and obligations.

Constitutional rights for zygotes, forced upon us in the first place by far-right American lobbying and money.

You can stick it

aloyisious

Reading the Irish Times yesterday on the way to the Curragh, i noted a very large article on matters directly related to the abortion debate. Some months ago in the print media there seemed to be a difference of opinion between the former and the present masters of Holles St National Maternity Hospital in respect to the national debate. However in the I/T article the present master makes it clear that [in her opinion] the 8th amendment made it difficult for medical doctors handling cases where the pregnant woman's life is at risk. The master also made direct reference to the case where a brain-dead pregnant woman was kept on a life support system in order to keep within the legal obligations put on doctors under the 8th amendment and current legislation. She also made direct mention to the 14 year prison term contained in the present law for failing to keep within that law.

It seemed [to me] from reading the article that the present master had changed her position on the debate and is definitely for deletion of the 8th [in so far as it directly imposes constraints on doctors treating pregnant women at risk of death in hospitals] leaving the doctors in a quandary as to whom they should save, whilst facing the chance of sanction from the state authorities should some-one [after the fact] conclude the doctor got it wrong for one reason or another.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

The master also made direct reference to the case where a brain-dead pregnant woman was kept on a life support system in order to keep within the legal obligations put on doctors under the 8th amendment and current legislation.

That is a demonstrably false view. The court ordered the doctor involved to shut down his (macabre and unethical IMO) medical experiment, with the result that the brain dead mother and the doomed foetus died immediately afterwards. So he was not required to do what he did by the law; he was required to cease doing it.

Also it seems two other eminent obstetricians clashed yesterday, over their opposing views.

Speaking at the launch, Dr John Monaghan, a consultant obstetrician, said he believes there is "no medical evidence to get rid of the Eighth Amendment". He said he had delivered between 4,000 and 5,000 babies during his career and had never been prevented from protecting a woman’s life by the Eighth Amendment.
Dr Monaghan said many doctors like him are pro-retain and he said others were giving "their personal views, not professional".

Speaking to RTNews following the launch of the Save the 8th campaign, Dr Boylan said "The Eighth Amendment has caused huge problems for the practice of obstetrics in Ireland, we've seen that with the long list of women whose lives have been deeply affected, to the point of death.

I'm not sure what "lives have been deeply affected, to the point of death" actually means; it seems like a weasely way of insinuating that the 8th amendment has caused death, but without actually saying it.

All we can say from all this is that doctors have their own personal views on the abortion issue, just like anyone else.

aloyisious

Dr Boylan is the former master of Holles St referred to in mine so it seem's he is still of the same opinion as that he held when the media reported on his differing with the present master, Dr Rhona Mahony, on the issue

looking at the quote from Niamh Uí Bhriain included in the following excerpt from her speech at the official launch of "Save The 8th" leaves me wondering if, after the referendum, the 8th is lost, THAT the people backing the message of that campaign will then use her words against doctors willing to provide any newly legalized medical services and against women who seek such services.

Its leader Niamh Uí Bhriain described a Yes vote as a "horrible and tragic mistake". She said politicians are asking people to trust them and are "effectively seeking a licence to kill". "The public cannot trust politicians with the right to life in the womb," she said.

Dr Monaghan did not say how he succeeded in getting around the strictures of the 8th after it became the law of the land when it came to saving the lives of women in the same health condition that women now would be in when being provided services allowed now [assuming he was still performing obstetrics and deliveries after the 8th came into operation]. He said he had delivered between 4,000 and 5,000 babies during his career and had never been prevented from protecting a woman’s life by the Eighth Amendment. It's entirely possible that he never faced having to make a choice on who's life to save.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

He said he had delivered between 4,000 and 5,000 babies during his career and had never been prevented from protecting a woman’s life by the Eighth Amendment. It's entirely possible that he never faced having to make a choice on who's life to save.

Given that stark choice, it has always been the practice to save the mother.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Given that stark choice, it has always been the practice to save the mother.

The Savita Halappanavar case demonstrably shows that this is not always achieved in practise.

Hotblack Desiato

Boylan and Mahony clashed publically over handing ownership of the new national maternity hospital over to the nuns.

Both of them are pro-choice.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Boylan and Mahony clashed publically over handing ownership of the new national maternity hospital over to the nuns.

Both of them are pro-choice.

Yes. I know that. It was on the point, which has been debated before, of the ethical policy of the nuns in regard to abortion that the clash between both Dr's took place. Dr Boylan not approving of the chance that the Nuns ethics might hold sway over the abortion policy of Holles St when it's maternal services were transferred to St Vincent's and Holles St ceased use as a maternal hospital.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

The Savita Halappanavar case demonstrably shows that this is not always achieved in practise.

It shows that best practice is not always achieved in reality.

You can educate yourself, or you can continue to make snide comments from a position of wilful ignorance. Your choice.

Savita’s consultant, Dr Katherine Astbury, did not refuse to terminate a life-threatening pregnancy because she was constrained by her interpretation of our abortion law. She didn’t think there was any threat to Savita’s health. As she said in her evidence to the coroner’s inquest: “there was no suggestion that she was in any way unwell...”
No suggestion? Except that, according to the evidence of Professor Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, to the HSE enquiry, infection is the cause of a miscarriage such as Savita’s — in the second trimester of pregnancy, presenting with her membranes bulging and her baby alive — in 77% of cases.
Infection should have been suspected from the very moment she was admitted to the hospital. Arulkumaran said he would have offered to terminate the pregnancy on Sunday, Oct 21, and advised termination after Savita’s waters broke in the early hours of Monday, Oct 22.
Astbury should have intervened to terminate the pregnancy straight-away, on medical evidence alone. She would not have faced any legal obstruction in doing so.
The issue of Irish abortion law has become a smokescreen protecting Savita’s consultant and her team at Galway University Hospital.

Its ridiculous pro-repeal people dragging up these tragic cases again and again, claiming that the brain dead woman was only kept alive because of the law, and Savita died because of the law, when in fact the medics involved in these cases were subsequently hauled up before the law and censured for medical negligence and/or malpractice.

Hotblack Desiato

Professor Boylan doesn't agree with you. In any case there are any number of valid reasons why repeal is necessary. If you reject the Savita case, do you also reject the fact that pregnant women are refused certain cancer treatments? Or that the 8th means that women are not required to consent to any treatment or intervention during pregnancy and birth?

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Given that stark choice, it has always been the practice to save the mother.

It used to be routine to prioritise the welfare of the baby.

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Boylan and Mahony clashed publically over handing ownership of the new national maternity hospital over to the nuns.

Both of them are pro-choice.

Funny how 'the nuns' have loomed so large in public discourse over these issues of late, when the reality behind the term is a handful of little old ladies...

smacl

recedite wrote: »

It shows that best practice is not always achieved in reality.

You can educate yourself, or you can continue to make snide comments from a position of wilful ignorance. Your choice.

Its ridiculous pro-repeal people dragging up these tragic cases again and again, claiming that the brain dead woman was only kept alive because of the law, and Savita died because of the law, when in fact the medics involved in these cases were subsequently hauled up before the law and censured for medical negligence and/or malpractice.

Ah here Rec, less of the comments about being snide and uneducated hey? From a write-up on the inquest;

Ms Halappanavar’s death has brought the issue of Ireland’s abortion laws back into the global spotlight and making comment on the topic today, Dr McLoughlin said, “It is not for the court to advise the Oireachtas but they may take cognisance of these proceedings.”

However, in his first recommendation he described current Medical Council guidelines on abortion as “very brief”.

He recommended that the guidelines be enhanced to advise doctors on how they can intervene in relation to terminations when there is a risk to the life of the mother.

He said that doctors practising in good faith “should not have to labour under the threat” of sanctions as serious as removal from the medical register or prison.

It seems entirely clear from the above that the law as it stands interferes with the medical practitioners ability to look after the best interests of the pregnant woman in scenarios such as this. Also from the inquest;

Expert witness Dr. Peter Boylan, a former Master at the National Maternity Hospital gave evidence that Savita would probably be alive if an abortion had been permitted.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

It shows that best practice is not always achieved in reality.

You can educate yourself, or you can continue to make snide comments from a position of wilful ignorance. Your choice.



Its ridiculous pro-repeal people dragging up these tragic cases again and again, claiming that the brain dead woman was only kept alive because of the law, and Savita died because of the law, when in fact the medics involved in these cases were subsequently hauled up before the law and censured for medical negligence and/or malpractice.

Or were they hauled up before the "law" for medical negligence and/or malpractice due to their understanding of the meaning of the 8th and their subsequent treatment of Savita? I refer you to the reply from one of the team to Savita, in respect of Savita asking for a termination.... It's amongst the evidence given by the team members at the hearing into the circumstances of her death which you can find in it's report.

With ref to the "hauled-up before the law" you mention, what law court were they hauled up in front of?

Originally Posted by smacl
The Savita Halappanavar case demonstrably shows that this is not always achieved in practise.
Your reply to smacl: It shows that best practice is not always achieved in reality .... I'll leave it to smacl to define what he/she meant by practice.

Re Victoria White, I'm not familiar with her column in the Examiner and, due to paywall block there, haven't been able to research her writings there fully. It's possible that due [statement in column] to personal historical factors she may be opposed to abortion. One leader, plus a one-line sentence in one of her pieces, read's as follow's: VICTORIA WHITE: Context can be lost when it comes to debating Eighth Amendment - My mother had me at 42 and I was only born because she was morally opposed to abortion, writes Victoria White...... As a result I am unable to see where Victoria stand's in regard to abortion and the 8th.