Leo Varadkar announces abortion referendum

pilly

pilly wrote: »

In what way?

No restrictions, medical, legal or bureaucratic for 90 days.

Captain Obvious

I would like to see it amended to allow the Dáil pass exceptions on a two thirds majority or something like that. It retains the protection of life that so many are concerned about yet ensures there is a mechanism to introduce exceptions for various reasons.

pilly

How does that make it badly constructed?

benjamin d

Does anyone think legislation will be anything other than badly constructed? Anything less than the British system will result in people still traveling, which will mean our legislation has failed. There's no way we'll have a more liberal system than Britain no matter what.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No restrictions, medical, legal or bureaucratic for 90 days.

That sounds fair enough to me.

Loafing Oaf

Absolam wrote: »

I think it's already perfectly obvious to everyone that legislation to allow rape victims access to abortion is unworkable if it's based on their actually being rape victims rather than simply saying they are rape victims. I can't see any attempt being made to frame that idea either in the Constitution or legislation. Permitting abortion on the basis of a preceding criminal act is unworkable, as it takes to long to prove the criminal act. More likely potential liberalisation will be based on immediately demonstrable criteria such as ffa, where the right to life exists but cannot be vindicated by any action of the State.

But opinion polls are consistently showing just as strong support for access to abortion for rape victims as for women with FFA. Can our politicians get away with saying "it's too diificult to legislate for abortion rights for rape/incest victims without broad liberalisation of abortion law, so we're not even going to try"?

Absolam

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But opinion polls are consistently showing just as strong support for access to abortion for rape victims as for women with FFA. Can our politicians get away with saying "it's too diificult to legislate for abortion rights for rape/incest victims without broad liberalisation of abortion law, so we're not even going to try"?

Sure... nobody wants to say they don't feel bad for rape victims. But will people let that persuade them to make abortion available to people who are preying on their sympathies and lying to game the system? Maybe not so much. Placing such a stark choice before the public means politicians don't need to get away with saying "it's too diificult to legislate for abortion rights for rape/incest victims without broad liberalisation of abortion law, so we're not even going to try"... they can let the public decide they don't even need to try.

I don't think anyone is naive enough to imagine that leading propositions (from both sides) like yours above won't be torn to shreds and pilloried as cynical attempts at manipulating sentiment by the opposition.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Should we not decriminalise euthanasia first before an abortion referendum?

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

Sure... nobody wants to say they don't feel bad for rape victims. But will people let that persuade them to make abortion available to people who are preying on their sympathies and lying to game the system? Maybe not so much.

Just make it freely available to all.

Covers FFA, rape, incest, everyone.

And banning it does no good, folks just travel to England unless blocked somehow.

Loafing Oaf

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Just make it freely available to all.

Covers FFA, rape, incest, everyone.

And banning it does no good, folks just travel to England unless blocked somehow.

But would the Irish people vote for that is the question. It's easy for activists like Colm O'Gorman and Ailbhe Smyth to push for that kind of broad liberalisation of the law, they won't have to take the flak if the referendum goes down...

Zubeneschamali

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But would the Irish people vote for that is the question.

Make them vote against it. Then again in 5 years, 10.

We all know it is happening eventually.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Just make it freely available to all. Covers FFA, rape, incest, everyone. And banning it does no good, folks just travel to England unless blocked somehow.

Certainly the opinion of some, if, I suspect, very very few. Can't see it carrying a public vote though. In fact, I can't see such a proposition even making it to a public vote.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But would the Irish people vote for that is the question. It's easy for activists like Colm O'Gorman and Ailbhe Smyth to push for that kind of broad liberalisation of the law, they won't have to take the flak if the referendum goes down...

Personally, I don't think so. Hard cases is where the sympathy lies for abortion; terrible tales of suffering that make people want to help. Tales of a need for a flat tummy come Majorca time to be paid for from taxpayers pockets aren't going to win hearts, and that's only the tip of how 'make it freely available to all' will be portrayed.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We all know it is happening eventually.

There are certainly some people intent on constantly telling us it is
I imagine some even think if they do it hard enough it will become a self fulfilling prophecy, but I've yet to meet a prophet who isn't a charlatan.

Loafing Oaf

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Make them vote against it. Then again in 5 years, 10.

We all know it is happening eventually.

Well all bar Absolam, perhaps, but I'm afraid that approach would only put off the glorious/evil day...

recedite

bubblypop wrote: »

Which was a referendum to make things more restrictive.
And it was rejected.

But rejected by the tiniest of margins. So when you have 49.6% of the population wanting a more restrictive regime compared to the status quo, it shows that the status quo has hit the right balance. And therefore there is not going to be another referendum anytime soon.
I think its fair to speculate that if that particular referendum (the 25th) had been defeated by a large majority, we would have had another one in the meantime proposing a further liberalisation.

Of course that was 15 years ago, so the time has come for a new test of public opinion anyway, regardless of that result.

Mutant z

It's about time this issue was put to the general public, we should give women of this country the choice to decide what they want to do with their own bodies.

recedite

Should we prevent men from voting then?

Zubeneschamali

recedite wrote: »

Should we prevent men from voting then?

In the SSM referendum, most people who voted were straight, and most straight people who voted supported SSM. This is the best way to put the cavemen back in their box - we will never hear a word out of Iona about gays again.

Absolam

Because... they haven't said anything at all about homosexuality or marriage since the referendum? The pro choice proponents here have been adamant that a referendum that doesn't deliver what they want won't keep them from continuing to campaign. I wonder why pro life proponents would be presumed to lack the same dedication?

Anyway, I don't think shutting Iona up (unlikely as that is) is quite the right reason for 'allowing' men to participate in a referendum.....

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

The pro choice proponents here have been adamant that a referendum that doesn't deliver what they want won't keep them from continuing to campaign. I wonder why pro life proponents would be presumed to lack the same dedication?

How's the campaign to ban divorce again coming along? Contraception? Gay marriage? Gay adoption? Homosexual acts? Votes for women?

The opposition to all of these measures evaporated as soon as they were passed and normalized. We sometimes hear from the "Bring back hanging!" crew, but not often, nor are they taken seriously anymore.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How's the campaign to ban divorce again coming along? Contraception? Gay marriage? Gay adoption? Homosexual acts? Votes for women? The opposition to all of these measures evaporated as soon as they were passed and normalized. We sometimes hear from the "Bring back hanging!" crew, but not often, nor are they taken seriously anymore.

I don't know there are any campaigns to do those things, though I imagine Iona might support a couple if there were.

So, should the right to life not be overturned in the referendum do you think opposition to it will evaporate as well? It's hard to imagine only people you disagree with give up when they lose a referendum. Is that more prophetic wishful thinking? I suspect there are still some pro choice campaigners around since 1983, though maybe not so may anti-suffragists from 1918, so I'm going to say I think those who oppose measures that will result in the deaths of others will probably continue to do so, even if a referendum goes against them.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

I don't know there are any campaigns to do those things, though I imagine Iona might support a couple if there were.

That is my point!

None of the campaigners changed their minds on these issues, they just got beaten. They lost. And since progressives move on to the next change, conservatives have always abandoned their lines and retreated to defend against the next change.

So when abortion is liberalised, i expect Iona to start defending segregated bathrooms from transgender/gender queer attack.

recedite

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And since progressives move on to the next change, conservatives have always abandoned their lines and retreated to defend against the next change.

That is pretty much the definition of conservatism/conservation. You can't "conserve" something after it has gone. If you did that, you'd be a "Restorative"

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

That is pretty much the definition of conservatism/conservation. You can't "conserve" something after it has gone. If you did that, you'd be a "Restorative"

Which shows that most opposition to those things was simply opposition to (fear of?) social change of any sort, rather than any principled opposition to the issue itself. For all but the very few deeply religious who would actually like a theocracy.
I'm confident that most of the current opposition to abortion rights comes from the same motivation, and will disappear once a workable abortion law has been seen not to lead straight to the end of society as we know it.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

Which shows that most opposition to those things was simply opposition to (fear of?) social change of any sort, rather than any principled opposition to the issue itself.

To some extent, but not entirely. Take the recently deceased Des Hanafin, as an example. Principled to the end, and he never changed his position AFAIK. But nowadays totally out of sync with current mainstream society. Many of today's "progressives" will be tomorrow's "conservatives".

Its a mistake to think that change is always good and progressive, while conservatism is always bad and regressive. Take the global warming issue. Trump wants to keep guzzling fossil fuels; that is a conservative position in some ways, but it leads to climate change.
Others want to change old habits in order to "conserve" CO2 levels at current levels. Even though global CO2 levels and temperatures have fluctuated wildly over planet earths history. Perhaps Trump is the driver of change on this one, so does that that mean he is progressive?

Loafing Oaf

recedite wrote: »

To some extent, but not entirely. Take the recently deceased Des Hanafin, as an example. Principled to the end, and he never changed his position AFAIK?

But was he or anyone else actively campaigning to re-outlaw divorce over the last 20 years? I don't see why abortion should be any different once a regime of abortion on demand/request in the early weeks of pregnancy has been introduced.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is my point! None of the campaigners changed their minds on these issues, they just got beaten. They lost. And since progressives move on to the next change, conservatives have always abandoned their lines and retreated to defend against the next change. So when abortion is liberalised, i expect Iona to start defending segregated bathrooms from transgender/gender queer attack.

The campaigners against the 8th got beaten. They lost. Yet they'll come back again for this referendum. I think that's generally the way with most idealists, whether you think they're right or or wrong, or progressive or conservative, doesn't make any difference I think. Should abortion never be legalised, I don't expect those who want it to campaign for something else, I think they'll hold onto their opinions. And vice versa. Imagining that those who supports liberal abortion are part of a crusading progressive team moving from one great freedom to the next, whist those who oppose it are some sort of retreating conservative bloc is just that... pure imagination. Like the prophecies that accompany it.

Loafing Oaf

Absolam wrote: »

The campaigners against the 8th got beaten. They lost. Yet they'll come back again for this referendum. I think that's generally the way with most idealists, whether you think they're right or or wrong, or progressive or conservative, doesn't make any difference I think.

But surely the Irish historical experience is that it makes a massive difference. Is anyone now actively seeking the re-outlawing of divorce, or contraception or gay sex. Conversely, if the second divorce referendum had gone the other way, can you say with confidence there wouldn't have been another referendum within the last 20 years.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

To some extent, but not entirely. Take the recently deceased Des Hanafin, as an example. Principled to the end, and he never changed his position AFAIK. But nowadays totally out of sync with current mainstream society. Many of today's "progressives" will be tomorrow's "conservatives".

This has been answered by others but since it's addressed to me, just to be clear, I didn't say individuals would consciously change their minds about these issues, but that they generally don't appear to care enough about the lost issues to spent time trying to revisit them, and prefer to move to whatever has been declared to be their next "last stand".

Its a mistake to think that change is always good and progressive, while conservatism is always bad and regressive. Take the global warming issue. Trump wants to keep guzzling fossil fuels; that is a conservative position in some ways, but it leads to climate change.
Others want to change old habits in order to "conserve" CO2 levels at current levels. Even though global CO2 levels and temperatures have fluctuated wildly over planet earths history. Perhaps Trump is the driver of change on this one, so does that that mean he is progressive?

Literally WTF? I didn't say any such thing, so this comes over as something of a mad rant TBH.

But just FYI the word "change" in "climate change" refers to a completely different thing from somebody wanting change in society.

And like really, WTF again. :eek:

PopePalpatine

recedite wrote: »

That is pretty much the definition of conservatism/conservation. You can't "conserve" something after it has gone. If you did that, you'd be a "Restorative"

I believe they prefer the label "Reactionary".

Mutant z

recedite wrote: »

Should we prevent men from voting then?

Of course not, all citizens of this country men and women are entitled to vote on this matter.

Absolam

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But surely the Irish historical experience is that it makes a massive difference. Is anyone now actively seeking the re-outlawing of divorce, or contraception or gay sex. Conversely, if the second divorce referendum had gone the other way, can you say with confidence there wouldn't have been another referendum within the last 20 years.

Well, no, I don't think the Irish experience comes into it. Calling someone progressive or conservative only labels them in line with your own perspective; it's a way of describing them in relation to your opinion of yourself (those you agree with will tend to be progressive, oddly enough), but it doesn't relate them to each other. So arguing that those who wanted to deprive women of the vote are the same as those who want to deprive women of the right to kill their offspring only means you think you're progressive compared to them. It doesn't mean either identify with each other, or that neither would consider themselves progressive compared to someone who supports legally legitimising acts of killing.

There are lots of things societies used to do that they don't do anymore, because societies change; there's not many people calling for human sacrifice these days either, along with all Nozz's other examples. The error is in imagining that because these things changed, and you want this thing to change, they can be lumped together.

Absolam

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I believe they prefer the label "Reactionary".

Is that not self-proclaimed progressives who are really just kicking out at whatever their parents supported?

Loafing Oaf

Absolam wrote: »

Well, no, I don't think the Irish experience comes into it. Calling someone progressive or conservative only labels them in line with your own perspective; it's a way of describing them in relation to your opinion of yourself (those you agree with will tend to be progressive, oddly enough), but it doesn't relate them to each other. So arguing that those who wanted to deprive women of the vote are the same as those who want to deprive women of the right to kill their offspring only means you think you're progressive compared to them. It doesn't mean either identify with each other, or that neither would consider themselves progressive compared to someone who supports legally legitimising acts of killing.

There are lots of things societies used to do that they don't do anymore, because societies change; there's not many people calling for human sacrifice these days either, along with all Nozz's other examples. The error is in imagining that because these things changed, and you want this thing to change, they can be lumped together.

I think you're fixating on labels because you realise you're argument is untenable. Well alright I'll try to make it using the most neutral language I can

In the first 40-50 years of independent Ireland, a lot of things were banned or severely restricted: divorce, contraceptives, 'dirty books', what have you. From the 1960s, efforts were made to legalise/liberalise these things, and groups were formed (or pre-existing groups took up the cudgels) to stymie those efforts. I don't know what non-perjorative label you'd be happy with for 'those forces' so I'll just call them that.

You are claiming that once extensive liberalisation of abortion has been achieved in Ireland (if it ever is), 'those forces' will campaign to have that liberalisation reversed. The argument that I and others in this thread are making is that once other formerly taboo practices like divorce are legalised or the restrictions on their availability are relaxed, 'those forces' essentially drop the issue in question and make no serious attempts to reverse its liberalisation. I know none of these other issues is exactly analogous to abortion, but then no analogy is ever precise.

Absolam

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I think you're fixating on labels because you realise you're argument is untenable. Well alright I'll try to make it using the most neutral language I can

Not really, I'm just pointing that saying a group of things belong together because you'd like them to doesn't mean they do, it just means you'd like them to.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

In the first 40-50 years of independent Ireland, a lot of things were banned or severely restricted: divorce, contraceptives, 'dirty books', what have you. From the 1960s, efforts were made to legalise/liberalise these things, and groups were formed (or pre-existing groups took up the cudgels) to stymie those efforts. I don't know what non-perjorative label you'd be happy with for 'those forces' so I'll just call them that.

Or, rather than thinking of all these things as a movement culminating in what you'd like to achieve, you might consider that the reason you think that what has gone before is progressive is because you are a result of it, and it doesn't necessarily betoken that your own views will either prevail or be considered progressive themselves, depending on the course of history.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You are claiming that once extensive liberalisation of abortion has been achieved in Ireland (if it ever is), 'those forces' will campaign to have that liberalisation reversed. The argument that I and others in this thread are making is that once other formerly taboo practices like divorce are legalised or the restrictions on their availability are relaxed, 'those forces' essentially drop the issue in question and make no serious attempts to reverse its liberalisation. I know none of these other issues is exactly analogous to abortion, but then no analogy is ever precise.

I'd say that there will always be groups who are dissatisfied with and campaign against the prevailing political, moral and ethical climate, and as any one view prevails at a given moment, it is considered to have been the progressive one, whether or not the issues they champion are 'taboo' or otherwise.

You're correct, none of the social mores which have changed in the last few thousand years are exactly analogous to our current circumstances with regard to abortion, which is quite a good reason not to consider any of them to be indicative of how it will play out.

professore

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Clearly defined human rights is basic law, no? One way or the other the Constitution is the place for any text on this. We don't want to give this power to legislators IMO. They could ban all abortion, or allow a free for all to minutes before birth, or anything in between. I want to know what I'm voting for or against on such a fundamental issue.

volchitsa

professore wrote: »

Clearly defined human rights is basic law, no? One way or the other the Constitution is the place for any text on this. We don't want to give this power to legislators IMO.

Personally I'd rather we gave it to doctors and couples involved, not to lawyers and random people who aren't the ones going to be left literally holding the baby.

But if we're not giving it to those directly involved, then surely the legislators are the only serious alternative? We've seen - and proved to the rest of the world unfortunately - that a constitutional article is far too blunt an instrument for what are sometimes complex medical decisions. That's how we got a dead woman whose family were medically advised to turn off her life support then being left literally rotting away because those same doctors didn't want to to risk being accused of not respecting the constitution.

They could ban all abortion, or allow a free for all to minutes before birth, or anything in between. I want to know what I'm voting for or against on such a fundamental issue.

Apart from how offensive - and just plain bizarre - it is to suppose that the only thing that stops women from aborting minutes before birth is a law preventing them (how do other countries manage?) wouldn't this actually be just inducing a birth? It's commonplace, in Ireland and elsewhere. And the baby survives it.

So why you think a woman might go through nine months of pregnancy and then - minutes before birth! - decide she'd changed her mind and no longer wanted the baby is hard for me to grasp. Do you actually know any women you think might do this? Or is this some sort of fantasy woman?

Loafing Oaf

Absolam wrote: »

Not really, I'm just pointing that saying a group of things belong together because you'd like them to doesn't mean they do, it just means you'd like them to.Or, rather than thinking of all these things as a movement culminating in what you'd like to achieve, you might consider that the reason you think that what has gone before is progressive is because you are a result of it, and it doesn't necessarily betoken that your own views will either prevail or be considered progressive themselves, depending on the course of history.

I'd say that there will always be groups who are dissatisfied with and campaign against the prevailing political, moral and ethical climate, and as any one view prevails at a given moment, it is considered to have been the progressive one, whether or not the issues they champion are 'taboo' or otherwise.

You're correct, none of the social mores which have changed in the last few thousand years are exactly analogous to our current circumstances with regard to abortion, which is quite a good reason not to consider any of them to be indicative of how it will play out.

Okay, if you refuse to see the development of other social issues in Ireland in recent decades as being in any way predictive of the likely development of the abortion issue over the coming years, how about the handling of abortion itself in other 'liberal democracies'. Do you accept that that in all or nearly all comparable countries, once a right to abortion on demand/request in the early stages of pregnancy has been established, opposition to that dispensation has largely evaporated, or at least been marginalised? And if so why would you accept the issue to evolve differently in Ireland?

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

...wouldn't this actually be just inducing a birth? It's commonplace, in Ireland and elsewhere. And the baby survives it.

Depends on the choices made. If it was treated as a premature baby, it might survive. If treated as an abortion, it definitely won't.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

Depends on the choices made. If it was treated as a premature baby, it might survive. If treated as an abortion, it definitely won't.

Once it's born, if it's viable, I don't believe there's any country that would allow a health baby to die. An extremely premature baby (whether aborted or miscarried) will sometimes not be resuscitated because the consequences for the child if it survives at all, are likely to be terrible handicaps. That happens in Ireland too by the way.

But in reality, pretty much all very late abortions are for severe disability even when there's no legal time limit. Women just don't turn round after 8 or 9 months and decide they can't be bothered any more. Doesn't happen.

recedite

Without going into the gory details, there is an overlap in many countries between the time period when a late term abortion can happen, and when a premature baby can be delivered and survive. Hence there is a choice.

I'm not going to speculate on all the reasons why that might hypothetically happen.
However, we do know that in the already well documented Miss Y case, a girl was apparently almost going to go to the Netherlands for an abortion with the assistance of various agencies, but then for whatever reason, did not go, and then eventually came back to the HSE here and demanded a late term abortion in Ireland, on the grounds of suicide.

You could argue that if abortion "on demand" had been available in Ireland in the first place, the problem would have been solved early on. Nevertheless, the crux of this case is that the girl went off the radar of social services for a long time, and when she finally came back she was at that stage when "the choice" had to be made.

volchitsa

No, that was not the crux of it at all, the crux of it was that she was very distressed upon learning of her pregnancy at 8 weeks, and wanted an abortion then. It was our law that prevented her from having one then because she wasn't distressed enough yet.

Making access to early abortion difficult, whether by making it illegal as in Ireland, or just closing all the abortion clinics as in the USA, is what leads to late abortions.

So if someone really wanted to ensure that late abortions didn't happen, they wouldn't waste too much time making laws about time limits, they would ensure that first trimester abortions were available for women who wanted them

Of course most people who claim to care about preventing late abortions are really only using the shock value of late abortions to try to stop women being allowed early abortions either.

Absolam

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Okay, if you refuse to see the development of other social issues in Ireland in recent decades as being in any way predictive of the likely development of the abortion issue over the coming years, how about the handling of abortion itself in other 'liberal democracies'. Do you accept that that in all or nearly all comparable countries, once a right to abortion on demand/request in the early stages of pregnancy has been established, opposition to that dispensation has largely evaporated, or at least been marginalised? And if so why would you accept the issue to evolve differently in Ireland?

Which countries do you think are comparable; the ones that have similar abortion regimes to Ireland, or the ones that have different regimes to Ireland? I suspect you'd like to compare Ireland to countries that have arrived at a more liberal abortion regime, even though they have followed an utterly different historical, social, and legislative path. Even still, the largest post colonial bicameral democracy in the world the US has a famously vocal and active anti abortion lobby, as does France, where the government has had to pass legislation to prevent them misleading people, and the UK, where SPUC has been active for 50 years, along with Life and others. In fact, I'm not sure there are any countries with liberal abortion regimes where opposition has 'evaporated'.

More to the point, none of the above in any way validates any sort of prophetic ability; quite simply neither your or Nozz know that opposition to abortion will evaportate if abortion ever becomes liberally available. I suspect you'd like it to, because that would make you feel you were right about liberalising abortion, and that you think if you tell people it will disappear then maybe they won't bother opposing liberal abortion if it does happen. My own feeling is that those who oppose it on principle will have no reason to stop opposing it.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

No, that was not the crux of it at all, the crux of it was that she was very distressed upon learning of her pregnancy at 8 weeks, and wanted an abortion then. It was our law that prevented her from having one then because she wasn't distressed enough yet.

No, our law prevented her from having one because her life was not endangered by her pregnancy.

volchitsa wrote: »

Making access to early abortion difficult, whether by making it illegal as in Ireland, or just closing all the abortion clinics as in the USA, is what leads to late abortions.

Sounds like the solution to that problem is to outlaw abortion so that neither early or late abortion is available.

volchitsa wrote: »

So if someone really wanted to ensure that late abortions didn't happen, they wouldn't waste too much time making laws about time limits, they would ensure that first trimester abortions were available for women who wanted them

Or, make abortion unavailable so that those who want them simply can't have them; that way late abortions wouldn't happen, or early ones.

volchitsa wrote: »

Of course most people who claim to care about preventing late abortions are really only using the shock value of late abortions to try to stop women being allowed early abortions either.

Possibly, as far as those who claim to care go. Most people who actually care about preventing late abortions might well care about preventing early abortions too.

Zubeneschamali

professore wrote: »

I want to know what I'm voting for or against on such a fundamental issue.

And yet people who voted for the 8th thinking it banned abortion were appalled to discover in the X case that they had actually legalized abortion accidentally.

And because it is in the Constitution, it is extremely hard to fix.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And yet people who voted for the 8th thinking it banned abortion were appalled to discover in the X case that they had actually legalized abortion accidentally.

And because it is in the Constitution, it is extremely hard to fix.

It wouldn't be that hard to fix, if people wanted to fix it.

They've twice been offered the opportunity in referenda to reverse the X case and amend the Constitution so that the risk of suicide will not be grounds for abortion. And each time they have voted that down.

So it's not that the X case is hard to fix. It's that people don't want to fix it.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And yet people who voted for the 8th thinking it banned abortion were appalled to discover in the X case that they had actually legalized abortion accidentally.

Well, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in accidentally; as I pointed out when you and I discussed this before, the framers of the 8th Amendment clearly envisioned abortion being available in limited circumstances, just as the SC in the X Case found they did; Noonan said that the underlying principle of the amendment was that the practice of abortion 'in the ordinary sense of that term' should not be permitted to creep into our law, saying "But there could be some hard cases where the “treatment” sought would constitute abortion which conflicts both with existing law and with the proposed amendment. The question may, therefore, legitimately be asked whether what I have said amounts to saying that neither the law nor society can take account of hard cases no matter how heartrending they may be and that there can be no allowance for a woman who breaks this rigid law. Of course it does not mean that.".

It's fair to say it's obvious that from the outset there was an intent for abortion to be legal is some circumstances, so it was no 'accident', even if some who voted for the 8th (just as there will be some who vote in the next referendum) would have preferred it were available in no circumstances.

NuMarvel

With the referendum to be informed by the report of the Citizens Assembly, I guess this thread is as good as any to discuss their report and recommendations on the 8th Amendment. (Mods: apologies if it's not and feel free to delete or move as is appropriate.)

There are no real surprises. Their recommendation for constitutional change was "to remove Article 40.3.3° from the Constitution, and for the avoidance of doubt, to replace it with a provision in the Constitution, which would make it clear that termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn, and any rights of the pregnant woman are matters for the Oireachtas. In other words, it would be solely a matter for the Oireachtas to decide how to legislate on these issues".

They also recommended that legislation include allowing abortion without restriction, with a 12 week gestational limit having the most support. They also proposed 12 grounds for which abortion should be allowed, with varying gestational limits.

And they also included some ancillary recommendations too, about improved sex education, maternity scanning, and counselling during pregnancy.

I can't see anything controversial in their constitutional proposal, but I can envisage resistance from politicians nonetheless. They've been happy to stay as far away from the matter as possible, so I can see them being uncomfortable proposing a constitutional amendment that puts the matter squarely in their hands. But anything else would be a snub to the Assembly they themselves set up, so I imagine this is the type of amendment we'll be voting on.

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

I imagine this is the type of amendment we'll be voting on.

I would rather vote on that and lose than enact some new legal horror in the constitution.

BlinkingLights

We really need to avoid putting what should be Oireachtas legislation into the Constitution ever again.

Absolam

NuMarvel wrote: »

I can't see anything controversial in their constitutional proposal, but I can envisage resistance from politicians nonetheless. They've been happy to stay as far away from the matter as possible, so I can see them being uncomfortable proposing a constitutional amendment that puts the matter squarely in their hands. But anything else would be a snub to the Assembly they themselves set up, so I imagine this is the type of amendment we'll be voting on.

I think it's fair to say it's extraordinarily controversial, hence the Times "the consensus in the Oireachtas is that the assembly's recommendations were an overly-liberal interpretation of the current thinking of middle Ireland on the issue." The Times which has been fairly consistently pro choice also asked "Why did members of the Citizens’ Assembly recommend a more liberal abortion regime than the Irish public would appear to want?" When we consider the full substantive recommendations of the Assembly;
That Article 40.3.3° should not be retained in full. (87%)
That Article 40.3.3° should be replaced or amended. (56%)
That Article 40.3.3° should be replaced with a constitutional provision that explicitly authorises the Oireachtas to legislate to address termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn, and any rights of the pregnant woman. (57%)
we can see why the Independent noted an issue of concern for the pro choice camp; the Assembly "has voted in favour of changing the constitutional clause which effectively criminalises abortion – but stopped short of repealing the law entirely."

I think we'll have no shortage of controversy over how much or how little of the Assembly's views are put before the public before we get to a referendum. And there will certainly be those who think placing a matter like this in the hands of career politicians rather than the people would be a grave mistake.