Leo Varadkar announces abortion referendum

Zubeneschamali

seamus wrote: »

If they don't heed this advice, then I will be voting No.

I will vote yes to any proposed change - it can't be as bad as what we have.

But I will also support any campaign to amend the Constitution again in line with the Citizen's Assembly report.

Peregrinus

pilly wrote: »

Am I right though in saying simply "repeal the 8th" as an option will not actually change things? That legislation will have to be brought in after that?

Yes. Simply repealing the eighth will mean that the constitution makes no specific mention of abortion/the right to life of the unborn/etc. It wouldn't in itself operate to say that woman have a right to abortion. Laws already in place which restrict or forbid abortion would still be in place.

It would be up to the Oireachtas to repeal or amend them, and I suspect they wouldn't do either very quickly - we know how they like to long-finger action on the question of abortion.

If and when they did legislate, there would then be a fresh series of constitutional challenges. Even though the Constitution would make no explicit mention of the right to life of the unborn, it would still recognise a right to life in general terms, and the Supreme Court would no doubt be invited to say whether that right applied to the born and the unborn alike. (It was fears of such a development that led to the introduction of the Eighth back in 1983.)

volchitsa

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I will vote yes to any proposed change - it can't be as bad as what we have.

But I will also support any campaign to amend the Constitution again in line with the Citizen's Assembly report.

I thought that about POLDP, but if we're now sectioning women for asking for abortion on a grounds that we thought up ourselves, perhaps that is frighteningly naive of me.

Not sure what the solution is though.

Zubeneschamali

volchitsa wrote: »

I thought that about POLDP

POLDP was not a change - it was just the conservative view of the Supreme Court judgement in the X case made into legislation.

It was awful, but it was progress - it officially made abortion legal here. In practice, under such restrictive terms that it might as well not have, but the principle is important. Abortion is legal here - now we are just arguing about when and where.

volchitsa

Oh I take your point, but honestly. This latest business has really made me despair about our legislators and medical services. I suspect POLDP probably wouldn't have helped Savita Halappanavar, and on top of that may have led to a child being sectioned. That is a new low surely. How can we call it an improvement for women, when its effects are so harmful to them? And that was supposed to improve access - imagine if they were trying to tighten the law and reduce access?

Zubeneschamali

volchitsa wrote: »

And that was supposed to improve access - imagine if they were trying to tighten the law and reduce access?

No, POLDPA was not supposed to improve access. It was supposed to put the X case judgement into law, and they did it grudgingly and on the most restrictive terms they could get away with.

They clearly thought no-one would be silly enough to actually try for an abortion under these terms unless they physically could not go to England.

volchitsa

So, it was just me then, who naively thought we had managed to improve things somewhat? I was happy when POLDP passed, because I thought it had made things better. Turns out it may have made things worse. That makes me worry about any wording of an amendment, never mind a law.

Basically they're running rings around us because they have a depth of hypocrisy and dishonesty that the pro choicers just cannot match. So how many of the general population who aren't necessarily aware of this history of duplicity will be able to see through it?

Peregrinus

The details made available about the case are pretty sketchy, and some of the commentary has tended to fill in the gaps with assumptions.

The child wasn’t sectioned “for asking for abortion”. There’s no power to section a child (or, for that matter, an adult) for asking for an abortion. A child can be sectioned, on the application of the HSE, if (a) the child is suffering from a mental disorder, and (b) the child requires treatment which they’re unlikely to get unless they are sectioned. A “mental disorder”, in this context, would be a mental illness that creates a serious likelihood of self-harm or harm to others, or that would impair her judgment so badly that her condition is likely to deteriorate (e.g. because she would refuse treatment).

It’s always the HSE that applies to court to have a child sectioned, but they can only apply on the strength of a report from a consultant psychiatrist. Obviously, unless the report says that the child has a mental disorder and requires treatment, as above, the court application won’t succeed. In practice, if a psychiatrist who has examined a child forwards a report of this kind to the HSE and says “I think you need to act”, the HSE will nearly always seek an order for the detention and treatment of the child. They’re not going to second-guess the psychiatrist who has examined the patient.

And that seems to be what happened here; a consultant psychiatrist examined the girl, reported that she suffered from a mental disorder and needed treatment that she wouldn’t get unless sectioned, and sent the report to the HSE advising a court application.

In cases of urgency the HSE can apply to the court for an order without giving notice to the child (or their parents). For obvious reasons, cases of urgency are not uncommon in mental health sectioning practice. It’s clear that in this instance the child and her parents weren’t given notice of the application. The report from the Child Care Law Reporting Project says that “both the young girl and her mother thought that they were being transferred to Dublin for a termination and she was very agitated when she found that she was being admitted to a mental health unit”.

(As an aside, the fact that the girl was “transferred” to Dublin indicates that she had already been admitted to hospital before being sectioned. We don’t know what she was in hospital for, and we don’t know whether it was a psychiatric hospital. We do know, though, that even before this episode began the girl had “a treating adolescent psychiatrist”, so I think she was already experiencing mental health challenges of one kind or another.)

Right. Where an order is made without notice like this, the matter is always back in court within a few days for the person affected, and their family, to have their say and for the order to be reviewed. And so it was here. The court heard evidence from the girl’s treating adolescent psychiatrist, and from a second consultant psychiatrist who had been retained to examine her by her court-appointed guardian. Both these psychiatrists agreed that the girl did not suffer from a “mental disorder” as defined in the Mental Health Act. In their view, even if she did have mental health challenges, they weren’t of the severity needed to justify sectioning her.

So, the picture that emerges here is:

1. The girl was already receiving psychiatric/mental health treatment before she became pregnant (or, at any rate, before she discovered she was pregnant.)

2. The realisation that she was pregnant may have precipitated something of a crisis in her condition. She seem to have threatened/expressed a desire for self-harm/suicide. This was the basis for the first psychiatrist’s report to the HSE recommending sectioning.

3. He was of the view, we are told, that the suicidal impulse was a consequence of her mental illness, and that it would not be resolved by a termination. In other words, although the pregnancy might have made her sicker, a termination wasn’t going to make her well again.

4. ON the basis of his report, the HSE applied for an urgent sectioning order, and got it.

5. The two psychiatrists who gave evidence at the subsequent full hearing of the application did not agree that she suffered from a mental disorder. She was depressed, angry and agitated, but she was “dealing with her depression well”. She wanted a termination and had “very strong views as to why”; this would at least partly account for her anger and agitation. The psychiatrists did not consider her suicidal. (Presumably, she was no longer threatening self-harm.) One of them considered that she did not suffer from a mental illness at all; the other that she did not suffer from an acute mental illness. On that evidence, it couldn’t be said that she had a “mental disorder”, so there was no basis for sectioning her and the order was discharged.

And now we come to the clusterf*ck. Under the POLDP Act, an abortion is lawful where there is a real and substantial risk of suicide, and that risk can only be averted by a termination. Obviously, that creates an incentive for a woman who wants an abortion to express any suicidal thoughts or impulses she may feel (and, some would suggest, thoughts or impulses that perhaps she doesn’t really feel). But if that woman is already receiving mental health treatment, or has previously been diagnosed with mental health challenges of one kind or another, there’s an obvious risk that what she says will result in her being sectioned.

Being sectioned isn’t inconsistent with having a termination. It’s quite possible both to qualify for a termination under the POLDP Act and to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. If the first psychiatrist had been correct in his assessment that her suicidal ideation was the result of her mental illness, and the girl’s sectioning had been upheld, it’s entirely possible that she would have had a termination under the POLDP Act while sectioned, and would have remained sectioned until a court was satisfied by medical evidence that her mental health had improved to a point where she was no longer a threat to herself.

But that’s the position we walk ourselves into when we make suicide a relevant consideration in both (a) abortion decisions, and (b) sectioning decisions.

DaDerv

Regardless of whether or not this goes through, Irish women will continue to get abortions, be it in England, Holland or wherever.

Just because it won't be happening on your door step doesn't mean it isn't happening. Would people not want something as important as this to be properly regulated and give the woman the most comfort and support possible? Pre and post decision? Financially I think it should be considered elective surgery, but the support has to be in place for anyone involved in the process.

I know a girl who took the decision to go to England. She said she regrets not talking to anyone about it beforehand and just went. Had there been a proper procedure of counselling of some sort prior, perhaps her decision would have been different.

volchitsa

Hmm. TBF there are some huge assumptions in your version of events too, Peregrinus - eg based on a single term in a possibly inaccurate newspaper report you assume that she had previous history of serious mental health issues. From the reporting I have read of incidents where I have had direct knowledge of what happened (unrelated to abortion) I'd be very dubious about that. It's perfectly possible that the "treating psychiatrist" was simply the one her GP sent her to, when she first requested an abortion.

You've also missed out that we've been told that the mother brought her to Dublin, believing the process for an abortion was underway. I haven't heard any plausible explanation for why the parents weren't asked for their consent to admit her in the first place, since forced admission is only allowed as a last resort. Clearly there's a lot we don't know, I agree, but IMO the queries over how she ended up sectioned are so major that it seems to me that my short cut is closer to what we know than your assumption of previous mental illness.

Zubeneschamali

volchitsa wrote: »

So how many of the general population who aren't necessarily aware of this history of duplicity will be able to see through it?

The Citizen's Assembly seemed to get it.

I had always thought that simply deleting the 8th would be the thing to do, but the Assembly's plan to actively replace it with a clause stating that the Oireachteas can legislate is even better.

Manach

The disassociate between the effects of abortion and its idealisation of touchstone rights was encapsulated by the cheering which occurred when this was announced by a group of liberal grads at a conference I attended. Given the number of these fresh idealists who might not have been around if the pros had their way a generation before demonstrates the irony of the situation.

Zubeneschamali

Manach wrote: »

Given the number of these fresh idealists who might not have been around if the pros had their way a generation before demonstrates the irony of the situation.

What percentage of university graduates do you imagine their mothers would have aborted if they didn't have to travel to England to do it?

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

Hmm. TBF there are some huge assumptions in your version of events too, Peregrinus - eg based on a single term in a possibly inaccurate newspaper report you assume that she had previous history of serious mental health issues. From the reporting I have read of incidents where I have had direct knowledge of what happened (unrelated to abortion) I'd be very dubious about that. It's perfectly possible that the "treating psychiatrist" was simply the one her GP sent her to, when she first requested an abortion.

I'm not relying on a newspaper account; I'm looking at the report published by the Child Care Law Reporting Project, which (SFAIK) is what all the newspaper reports and subsequent comment is based on. It's not complete, but it's probably the best source we have.

But I take your point that in some respects I may be adding two and two together to get five. I'm not asserting that the girl had "previous history of serious mental health issues"; just that she was already receiving mental health care when she discovered she was pregnant. Your suggest that the "treating adolescent psychiatrist" may have been one to whom she was referred by her GP when she first sought an abortion. I don't think so; he's described as a her treating psychiatrist, which I think means she was seeing him for treatment and not merely for assessment. But I could be wrong. And, I stress, even if she was receiving psychiatric treatment we don't know what condition she had been diagnosed with and we certainly don't know that her condition would have been described as "serious".

volchitsa wrote: »

You've also missed out that we've been told that the mother brought her to Dublin, believing the process for an abortion was underway. I haven't heard any plausible explanation for why the parents weren't asked for their consent to admit her in the first place, since forced admission is only allowed as a last resort. Clearly there's a lot we don't know, I agree, but IMO the queries over how she ended up sectioned are so major that it seems to me that my short cut is closer to what we know than your assumption of previous mental illness.

I'm not missing that point; it's because of that point that we know the sectioning application was made, and an interim order was given, without any notice to the girl or her family. Like you, I haven't heard any plausible explanation for this, but we can't assume there was none. The psychiatrist must have persuaded the HSE, and both of them must have persuaded the court, that there was a critical urgency that required things to be done this way.

But, despite these points, I think you and I are broadly in agreement. Right-to-choose aside, making abortion conditional on a risk of suicide is a bad policy precisely because the possibility of mental disorder, and therefore sectioning, always raises its head. The legislation requires that the risk of suicide be identified by three(!) medical practitioners and, while suicide is by no means always an outcome of mental illness, that possibility is always going to occur to mental practitioners asked to assess a suicide risk. They're doctors; of course they're going to consider the possibility of mental illness.

The point was made in the X case that the girl wasn't mentally ill, but the point was also made that, as regards the constitutional provisions concerning abortion, it doesn't matter whether a risk of suicide is or is not the outcome of a mental illness; all that matters is whether it is "real and substantial". So it's entirely possible that an application for an abortion under the POLDP Act will also result in sectioning under the MH Act. And, in fact, if sectioning is going to happen, its likely to happen first - i.e. you'll be sectioned before you know whether you qualify for an abortion.

In other words, we can't write off this sectioning as a stuff-up by a stupid psychiatrist and/or a stupid district judge. This is a systemic failure.

And another thought; we all know that if this woman had been 24 instead of 14 she would simply have gone to Britain and had her abortion there, and we need never have known about it. She didn't because she's 14, and in the UK doctors will not administer an abortion on demand to a 14-year old, cash-in-hand, no questions asked. Had she gone to the UK, they would still have wanted to talk to her parents (or at least know why they couldn't), they would still have wanted to talk to her medical advisers, if I'm right in thinking that she was already receiving treatment for a mental health condition they'd have wanted to look into that, etc, etc. 14-year olds just don't have the agency that adults do in this matter.

Which makes the point that the POLDP process is in theory available to all, but in practice it's only going to be availed of by those who can't easily go to the UK - teenagers, prisoners, the already very sick, etc. It's not a coincidence that both the X case and this recent incidence both involved teenagers, and future cases (if the POLDP remains in force) will also involve people who are in some way disadvantaged, vulnerable, not independent agents. These are the people upon whom this train-wreck of a system is being foisted.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

In other words, we can't write off this sectioning as a stuff-up by a stupid psychiatrist and/or a stupid district judge.

Oh, I don't think psychiatrist #1 was stupid or made a mistake, I think they knew exactly what they were doing - defending the right to life of an "unborn".

And the fact that psychiatrist #2 and judge #2 released the girl with no hesitation tells me that THEY knew exactly what psychiatrist #1 was doing, too.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh, I don't think psychiatrist #1 was stupid or made a mistake, I think they knew exactly what they were doing - defending the right to life of an "unborn".

And the fact that psychiatrist #2 and judge #2 released the girl with no hesitation tells me that THEY knew exactly what psychiatrist #1 was doing, too.

I see no reason to think either of those things.

And I also suggest that thinking them seeks to focus the blame on fallible (or oppressive) individuals, which distracts attention from the real problem, which is the system that it set up so that this happens.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

I see no reason to think either of those things.

How often is someone presenting as suicidal sectioned? Without their parent knowing in advance? This is extremely odd.

How often does a 2nd opinion say "Definitely nothing at all wrong with this person that the other person sectioned, release them at once?"

Psychiatrist #2 knew something which made them happy to flatly contradict psychiatrist #1 (although the GAL was careful to let on that the language allowed that the girl had miraculously gotten better).

BlinkingLights

The people most at risk of this process are anyone in the care of the state. That typically includes women in prison, teenagers who may be wards of court or in state care, people who rely on state care and also probably refugees seeking asylum.

The other group we forget is people who are here on work permits who do not have access to the UK or EU. Ireland operates an entirely separate visa regime to the UK and Schengen area. It's perfectly possible to be here without any rights to seek treatment in the UK or EU.

Even people in good jobs could be in this position. Imagine you're say an American doing a normal job here. You're long term resident so no longer have American insurance to go home for treatment and are not covered in the EU or UK.

Also add Brexit and tightening NHS budgets and general growing political distain for providing services to non UK residents.

At best, the woman ends up with a messy and very expensive trip home to seek an abortion possibly without insurance.

Ireland has been social dumping to the UK for decades on this issue. It's both hypocritical and highly unfair on the UK too. I'm actually surprised the UK has been so tolerant of what is basically Ireland refusing to have a rational discussion about abortion and assuming that the UK will pick up the pieces of our totally insane political decision.

Sesame

Peregrinus wrote: »

3. He was of the view, we are told, that the suicidal impulse was a consequence of her mental illness, and that it would not be resolved by a termination. In other words, although the pregnancy might have made her sicker, a termination wasn’t going to make her well again.

Its highly likely that it was not a "he", but a "she" that was the first psychiatrist that had the girl committed.

Peregrinus

Well, one possible difference was that the patient expressed suicidal ideation to psychiatrist #1 (in the hope that it would secure access to an abortion) but repudiated it to psychiatrists #2 and #3 (in the hope that this would facilitate her discharge).

The fact of the matter is that we don't know what passed when the girl was assessed by any of the psychiatrists. We don't know whether she presented differently to them, leading to different assessments, or she presented similarly, but they still made different assessments because they formed different professional assessments. (Which happens all the time in medical practice; that's why people seek second opinions.)

For the girl to be detained, psychiatrist #1 must have expressed the view that she was suffering from a mental disorder that required treatment. And I see nothing at all to suggest that that wasn't his genuine view, and that he in fact pretended to hold that view in order to impose his views about abortion on the girl. (Particularly when, if anything, being sectioned made it more likely that she would be found to qualify for an abortion under Irish law. Clearly, if she were sectioned on the basis of suicidal ideation, the threat to her life must have been real and substantial.)

Never attribute to conspiracy that which doesn't require a conspiracy to explain it. And, even more, never attribute to conspiracy something that isn't even explained by the conspiracy. And I think this falls into that category.

BlinkingLights

That's the one thing that's surprising me. I'm speaking just from my own experience here but the most vociferous anti abortion people I am encountering are middle aged women.(by middle aged I mean typically more late 40s and older).

I haven't found a lot of guys against it at all.

Christy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How often is someone presenting as suicidal sectioned? Whithout their parent knowing in advance? THis is extremely odd.

How often does a 2nd opinion say "Definitley nothing at all wrong with this person that the other person sectioned, release them at once?"

Psychiatrist #2 knew something which made them happy to flatly contradict psychiatrist #1 (although the GAL was careful to let on that the labnguage allowed that the girl had miraculously gotten better).

The end result of which will be that any woman with the money will still travel to England whether or not they are entitled to have an abortion here on mental health grounds. If they think for a second that the psychiatrist will rule based on their moral/religious code they won't take the risk.

Indeed in this scenario it does not even require the psychiatrist to have acted in bad faith. Merely that there is the perception they might have. And I would say the woman would be right to travel just in case the perception is correct and they are unlucky with the choice of psychiatrist.

BlinkingLights

You're also seeing an expectation that a psychiatrist will play this game.

If you present to a psychiatrist saying you're suicidal, they gave a duty of care to ensure that you receive help and if they don't they could be facing legal action or malpractice action.

This is the problem though. You cannot assume that a psychiatrist will or can just assume that you're just trying to play the system to access abortion services. They can only deal with what's presented to them and mental illness is not a very scientific diagnosis. It's not like doing a scan and diagnosing heart disease. It's all about discussing symptoms and observation.

The current situation is actually risky unfair on psychiatrists too. They've been put in an awful position.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Never attribute to conspiracy that which doesn't require a conspiracy to explain it.

We already know that hundreds of Irish psychiatrists declared before the POLDP was passed that they would never under any circumstances find that an abortion was justified, law or no law.

What is such a psychiatrist to do with a patient who presents saying that she will kill herself if she is not allowed an abortion?

BlinkingLights

This is the problem though. We've just passed the buck from the Oireachtas to an already totally over burdened and under resourced group of health professionals.

secondrowgal

I may be a little confused... if the 8th is completely repealed, my understanding is that it is then up to the Oireachtas to legislate. That means the government. Are we seriously trusting the government to come up with anything remotely resembling a satisfactory bill? And I am not having a go at them, what I mean is that there are 150-odd people, with diverging opinions on a very contentious issue. How are they going to agree on this?

And then there is all this bunkum about not having to vote on "matters of conscience", as if everything to that one has an opinion on is not a matter of conscience.

pilly

secondrowgal wrote:

I may be a little confused... if the 8th is completely repealed, my understanding is that it is then up to the Oireachtas to legislate. That means the government. Are we seriously trusting the government to come up with anything remotely resembling a satisfactory bill? And I am not having a go at them, what I mean is that there are 150-odd people, with diverging opinions on a very contentious issue. How are they going to agree on this?

So who would you expect to come up with it?

secondrowgal

pilly wrote: »

So who would you expect to come up with it?

That's the issue, I don't know. For sure, it's the government's job. It's just a mess no matter what and I worry that it will be kicked down the road again and again as they debate the wording. Look how long it's taken to get to this stage.

pilly

secondrowgal wrote: »

That's the issue, I don't know. For sure, it's the government's job. It's just a mess no matter what and I worry that it will be kicked down the road again and again as they debate the wording. Look how long it's taken to get to this stage.

Agreed.

Zubeneschamali

pilly wrote: »

So who would you expect to come up with it?

The whole point of the Citizen's Assembly was to produce something for the politicians to hide behind.

But it is possible that the Assembly's recommendations will be too liberal for our FG/FF government to swallow (or the next one, which will be FF/FG).

secondrowgal

secondrowgal wrote: »

I may be a little confused... if the 8th is completely repealed, my understanding is that it is then up to the Oireachtas to legislate. That means the government. Are we seriously trusting the government to come up with anything remotely resembling a satisfactory bill? And I am not having a go at them, what I mean is that there are 150-odd people, with diverging opinions on a very contentious issue. How are they going to agree on this?

And then there is all this bunkum about not having to vote on "matters of conscience", as if everything to that one has an opinion on is not a matter of conscience.

I do wonder how it will play out, if the 8th is repealed then people will have to support their TDs in bringing in the legislation they want. (VOTE for them)


From what I can see of the repeal campaign on twitter a large element of the repeal campaign is fairly left wing.

I mean the government could promise to make it free safe & legal tomorrow morning and a lot of repeal folks would still go out of their way to vote against FG. :pac:

Loafing Oaf

secondrowgal wrote: »

I may be a little confused... if the 8th is completely repealed, my understanding is that it is then up to the Oireachtas to legislate. That means the government. Are we seriously trusting the government to come up with anything remotely resembling a satisfactory bill?

Assuming we're going for a straight repeal referendum, the legislation will be published before the referendum, or will have to be if the government wants it to pass. So voters will be able to take that into account when making their decision.

recedite

secondrowgal wrote: »

For sure, it's the government's job.

Not necessarily, because the people voted for the 8th amendment, so only the people can decide to empower the govt. to legislate for abortion.

Its easy to just say "only they govt. should be legislating for abortion; its not a matter for the constitution" but the fact is, the people have previously said the opposite. Only the people can overturn that status quo. The reason something like that would be in the Constitution is specifically so that incoming governments can't suddenly decide to make something illegal which was perfectly legal under the previous govt. (now the opposition). Or vice versa.

And the situation is complicated by the fact that the legislature and the government are not fully separate in Ireland; the govt. normally controls any Dail vote. So the people have tied the hands of the govt. on this issue, and only the people can untie them. The only reason we have the current abortion legislation is because some SC judges made a very "creative" interpretation of the Constitution at the time of the X-case, which the politicians were eventually obliged to interpret as the legislation.

But whenever you have a new referendum on the subject, some people will vote No because they are pro-life, and they feel the referendum proposal doesn't properly reflect their view. And others will vote No because they are pro-choice and they feel it doesn't properly reflect their view.

IMO there are two possible solutions to all this;
1) Repeal the 8th and give any future govt/Dail a free hand to legislate on the issue by inserting a new article into the Constitution saying that the unborn do not have an automatic right to life, and that abortion is a matter for the Oireactas to legislate on.

2) Retain Constitutional control over future govt/Dail, but amend the Constitution to suit a new generation of people. The tricky part here is to draft the right wording, such that a simple Yes/No answer can be given in the ballot box. It would require some creative thinking in advance, perhaps by holding a preferendum in advance of, or instead of, the actual referendum. That might seem overly complicated, but in principle its similar to the proportional representation (ie the single transferrable vote) that we already use for counting votes in elections. And we like to consider that's a much better system than the "first past the post" system as used in UK elections.

BTW I don't agree that referendums in general are costly and expensive. Its possible to have multiple separate issues decided on the same day. We should have a Referendum Day every two years or so IMO, just to sort out any outstanding issues.

Loafing Oaf

recedite wrote: »

And others will vote No because they are pro-choice and they feel it doesn't properly reflect their view.

Why would any pro-choice person vote no to a proposal to liberalise abortion law, even if they felt it didn't go far enough?

recedite

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Why would any pro-choice person vote no to a proposal to liberalise abortion law, even if they felt it didn't go far enough?

Don't ask me why, but its human nature
You don't have to look any further than this very thread for examples...

oscarBravo wrote: »

This. I'm blue in the face saying it. I'll be campaigning for nothing short of full repeal.

seamus wrote: »

If they don't heed this advice, then I will be voting No.

oscarBravo

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Why would any pro-choice person vote no to a proposal to liberalise abortion law, even if they felt it didn't go far enough?

Because craven compromises tend to have unintended consequences.

Loafing Oaf

recedite wrote: »

Don't ask me why, but its human nature
You don't have to look any further than this very thread for examples...

I can't believe anything more than a handful of ill-advised people would do that. If the referendum is defeated the issue will not be addressed again in any form for another ten years at the very least.

Boggy Turf

JupiterKid wrote: »

I'm not looking forward to the campaigns on both sides in the run up to the referendum. It will get ugly.

To be fair it tends to get ugly from the Anti Abortion side because they make up stuff and use stupid rhetoric they heard from Iona or some crazy person. The Pro side tend to speak the truth even when unpalatable.

Mint Sauce

JupiterKid wrote: »

I'm not looking forward to the campaigns on both sides in the run up to the referendum. It will get ugly.

I thought it was already ugly/messy. I remember a talk from youth defence a few years ago of which I had the serious mispleasure of being at. Granted they used the Sunday sermon to give their presentation, but never before did I want to leave a church more.

Not saying I would want, or approve of abortion all cases, but never would I (hopefully) think less
of anyone who went for one, but I do hope the government give this a balanced debate, and least offer us the option to give it in cases of fetal abnormalities, or in cases of rape/incest.

hatrickpatrick

secondrowgal wrote: »

I may be a little confused... if the 8th is completely repealed, my understanding is that it is then up to the Oireachtas to legislate. That means the government. Are we seriously trusting the government to come up with anything remotely resembling a satisfactory bill? And I am not having a go at them, what I mean is that there are 150-odd people, with diverging opinions on a very contentious issue. How are they going to agree on this?

And then there is all this bunkum about not having to vote on "matters of conscience", as if everything to that one has an opinion on is not a matter of conscience.

It's certainly not going to be anywhere near liberal enough as long as Leo Varadkar wields the party whip. He's already come out publicly and said that he will not support the Citizens' Assembly recommendation, which is definitely what the majority of the young women fronting and driving the huge Repeal campaign regard as the only acceptable outcome.

It's a tricky one to know how to react to really. On the one hand, one can view it as Michael Collins viewed the treaty - not the result you want, but a stepping stone towards that result. On the other hand, if the Dail legislates, you can bet that it will probably be decades before another government has the balls to touch the issue, refusing to do so on the grounds that "we've only just dealt with that, it's already been decided".

So should the repeal campaigners agitate for abortion on demand up to a certain term limit and actively oppose anything less that they are offered by the government, or accept the most likely massively restricted version Leo & co will go for, on the grounds that it's a step in the right direction?

johnnyskeleton

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's a tricky one to know how to react to really. On the one hand, one can view it as Michael Collins viewed the treaty - not the result you want, but a stepping stone towards that result. On the other hand, if the Dail legislates, you can bet that it will probably be decades before another government has the balls to touch the issue, refusing to do so on the grounds that "we've only just dealt with that, it's already been decided".

The polls seem to suggest that the majority are in favour of reform but against total repeal. I think the polls will come up with different results each time they are run but also when the specific proposal is set.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/poll-shows-public-support-for-abortion-is-cautious-and-conditional-1.2995696?mode=amp

So its not quite a stepping stone argument insofar as the peoples will would seem (large caveat there) to be for a midway position. It is not a scenario where most people want the 8th amendment to be repealed completely but cant achieve it for diplomatic reasons. Its that the majority seem to want to keep some form of 8th amendment.

That might change during the course of the argument but aa you say a partial reform might mean its not addressed again for decades. Moreover, anyone who does try to change it again will be accused of wanting abortion on demand / abortion as contraception etc to be brought in which politically is a harder sell that the more black and white constitutional special protection or not for the unborn.

So should the repeal campaigners agitate for abortion on demand up to a certain term limit and actively oppose anything less that they are offered by the government, or accept the most likely massively restricted version Leo & co will go for, on the grounds that it's a step in the right direction?

Well they would be advocating complete repeal rather than abortion on demand per se, because even a complete repeal will not necessarily result in abortion on demand. It will depend on the government but it could lead to an argument that there is a right to abortion, where currently such an unenumerated absolute right cannot exist under the constitution.

I think they should advocate for complete repeal until the wording of the legislation is approved by the dail, but if it is not full repeal I think they should still vote for the liberalisation/compromise position as offered.

It might seem like a missed opportunity but if it is the will of the people then so be it. They may as well accept the reforms which will save lives in the short-medium term and foresake the chance of a full repeal. In the long term, if there is a sea change whereby the majority of the Irish people want abortion on demand and it is a pressing issue, a new referendum will follow.

The alternative is that repeal is voted down and they are stuck with it until a further referendum becomes popular.

blanch152

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The whole point of the Citizen's Assembly was to produce something for the politicians to hide behind.

But it is possible that the Assembly's recommendations will be too liberal for our FG/FF government to swallow (or the next one, which will be FF/FG).

I think the Citizen's Assembly recommendations (whether you agree with them or not) will be too liberal for the electorate to swallow. As a result, they run the risk of stopping the Repeal the 8th movement.

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's certainly not going to be anywhere near liberal enough as long as Leo Varadkar wields the party whip. He's already come out publicly and said that he will not support the Citizens' Assembly recommendation, which is definitely what the majority of the young women fronting and driving the huge Repeal campaign regard as the only acceptable outcome.

It's a tricky one to know how to react to really. On the one hand, one can view it as Michael Collins viewed the treaty - not the result you want, but a stepping stone towards that result. On the other hand, if the Dail legislates, you can bet that it will probably be decades before another government has the balls to touch the issue, refusing to do so on the grounds that "we've only just dealt with that, it's already been decided".

So should the repeal campaigners agitate for abortion on demand up to a certain term limit and actively oppose anything less that they are offered by the government, or accept the most likely massively restricted version Leo & co will go for, on the grounds that it's a step in the right direction?

It would take longer for a second referendum than a change in the law if the Oireachtas got it wrong.

Like it or not, the only sensible solution, given the way the Courts deal with the current amendment, is a complete repeal, with Oireachtas then putting legislation in place.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We already know that hundreds of Irish psychiatrists declared before the POLDP was passed that they would never under any circumstances find that an abortion was justified, law or no law.

What is such a psychiatrist to do with a patient who presents saying that she will kill herself if she is not allowed an abortion?

If your basic argument here is that the POLDP system is badly designed, you'll get no dispute from me.

But, the answer to your specific query:

Obviously the psychiatrists concerned aren’t going to certify the patient for an abortion.

Obviously they will also consider whether she should be involuntarily detained under the Mental Health Act.

Under that Act, the first question the psychiatrist has to ask himself is, is the patient mentally ill? (Or suffering from severe dementia or significant intellectual disability, but I think we can leave those possiblities aside in this context.) Expressing or even implementing a desire to commit suicide is not in itself a mental illness, or evidence of a mental illness (as advocates for assisted dying will all know). If she's not mentally ill, she can't be sectioned; end of enquiry.

If she is mentally ill, are her threats of suicide caused by her mental illness? If not, she can’t be sectioned; end of enquiry

If the answer to both these questions is “yes”, the psychiatrist may have her removed to an “approved centre” where she will be examined by a different psychiatrist, who (a) will form his own opinion as to whether she is mentally ill and (b) whether the illness is the cause of her threats of suicide, and a new question (c) whether her illness is treatable, since you can only be admitted for treatment.

If the answer to all these questions is “yes” an admission order can be made, and it’s the admission order that’s referred to as “sectioning”.

(All of the above relates to an adult patient. The procedure is different for a child, as outlined in earlier posts.)

So, I think your question comes down to this: Do I expect that every psychiatrist who has indicated that he would not certify a woman for an abortion will also judge that every woman who is so distressed by her pregnancy as to contemplate suicide must, ipso facto, be mentally ill?

No, I don’t expect that.

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

It would take longer for a second referendum than a change in the law if the Oireachtas got it wrong.

Like it or not, the only sensible solution, given the way the Courts deal with the current amendment, is a complete repeal, with Oireachtas then putting legislation in place.

There's much to be said for this view.

The problem is that a complete repeal, giving the Oireachtas carte blanche to put any legislation in place, might not pass. And, of course, if it didn't, that puts the kibosh on the thing for another ten years or more.

Peregrinus

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Why would any pro-choice person vote no to a proposal to liberalise abortion law, even if they felt it didn't go far enough?

recedite wrote: »

Don't ask me why, but its human nature
You don't have to look any further than this very thread for examples...

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I can't believe anything more than a handful of ill-advised people would do that. If the referendum is defeated the issue will not be addressed again in any form for another ten years at the very least.

And if the referendum is passed it won't be addressed again in any form for another ten years at the least.

So if the proposal is to amend the constitution to allow abortion not only in cases of real and substantial threat to the mother's life (as at present) but also in cases of incest and fatal foetal abnormality, but not otherwise, that's clearly not going to satisfy anyone who takes a pro-choice position. And rather than vote for, and lock in, that anti-choice abortion position, they might choose to vote against it, and keep campaigning.

Paleblood

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

Yeah and if you look from a purely economical point of view, introducing abortion will probably save the State a fortune in benefits supporting unwanted children.

This is purely anecdotal, but in my experience some of the loudest pro-lifers are also benefit-lifers. Those people are a burden on the state because they don't want to contribute to society, not because their children are unwanted. It's easy for people like that to be pro-life because there's never a wrong time to have a baby, seeing as it's the only thing they'll ever achieve and they might get a free house if the father ****s off (or hides in his brand new attic when the inspector comes round).

solodeogloria

Persephone kindness wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/abortion-referendum-to-be-held-next-year-varadkar-says-1.3119981?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Foireachtas%2Fabortion-referendum-to-be-held-next-year-varadkar-says-1.3119981

It's to be held 2018.

I guess we could make this the general thread for it

Good morning!

I think we can all groan at the madness this will bring on the country with both the radical unwilling to compromise on anything pro-lifers to the radical pro-choicers who will inevitably be the ones campaigning.

The article is pretty useless because it doesn't tell us what they are planning to replace it with. Or is it simply to remove the clause from the Constitution?

I'm not opposed to the referendum if it is simply to allow for termination in the event of fatal foetal abnormalities. I am however opposed to the referendum if it is to allow abortion as a free for all.

The one advantage is that if the referendum is anything other than a moderate adjustment to the 8th Amendment I'm fairly sure that it will be soundly rejected.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I think we can all groan at the madness this will bring on the country with both the radical unwilling to compromise on anything pro-lifers to the radical pro-choicers who will inevitably be the ones campaigning.

The article is pretty useless because it doesn't tell us what they are planning to replace it with. Or is it simply to remove the clause from the Constitution?

That's not the fault of the article or of the journalist who wrote it. Varadkar hasn't said what amendment will be put before the people in the referendum.

ancapailldorcha

Paleblood wrote: »

This is purely anecdotal, but in my experience some of the loudest pro-lifers are also benefit-lifers. Those people are a burden on the state because they don't want to contribute to society, not because their children are unwanted. It's easy for people like that to be pro-life because there's never a wrong time to have a baby, seeing as it's the only thing they'll ever achieve and they might get a free house if the father ****s off (or hides in his brand new attic when the inspector comes round).

Mod: Please do not generalise like this here. Thanks.