What kind of abortion legislation ought we expect?

davedanon

Let me try again:

'Right to Choose' is a general principle, which turned out to be pivotal in the Referendum.

The fact that you think it's a sentence lacking a subject is telling.

robarmstrong

Dear oh dear oh dear.

Someone cannot take it that his side was beaten and beaten soundly.

Give it a rest, take a day off, do something productive. The people have voted to remove the 8th. They voted to remove the 8th so that legislation could be brought in, you've been told numerous times by posters clearly more in the know-how than yourself that PR doesn't apply to referenda but you insist on it due to an exit poll despite you saying (correct me if I'm wrong) the only poll/vote that actually matters is the one to retain/repeal. What changed?

You're either incredibly, incredibly salty that the 8th has been thankfully been removed or you're just looking to pick fights to vent some anger.

Bredabe

Hopefully, one of the first things they do(soonest) removes the penalty for the importation of 'abortion pills', leaving users free to get medical help if they need it.

NuMarvel

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wonder what the legal standing of the referendum result would be if it could be shown that the Citizens Assembly was utterly unfit-for-purpose?

What if it could be shown that on a sufficient number of fronts (both in it's set up and in it's operation), that it was the brainchild and job-of-work of pro-choice politicians?

I never though it would happen, but I think someone has finally managed to make Maurice Lyons and Gerry Walshe look like legal geniues.

But to answer your question, the legal standing would be exactly the same. If you're in doubt, feel free to review Part 4 of the 1994 referendum act.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wonder what the legal standing of the referendum result would be if it could be shown that the Citizens Assembly was utterly unfit-for-purpose?

What if it could be shown that on a sufficient number of fronts (both in it's set up and in it's operation), that it was the brainchild and job-of-work of pro-choice politicians?

Utterly irrelevant to the legal standing of the result. You can read about referenda in the Constitution itself, article 46 and 47.

ELM327

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wonder what the legal standing of the referendum result would be if it could be shown that the Citizens Assembly was utterly unfit-for-purpose?

What if it could be shown that on a sufficient number of fronts (both in it's set up and in it's operation), that it was the brainchild and job-of-work of pro-choice politicians?

Clutching at straws.... it's too late for that.
The no side has been well and truly beaten 2:1, an unheard of result for such a supposedly contentious issue.

It's done. Move on.

NuMarvel

Bredabe wrote: »

Hopefully, one of the first things they do(soonest) removes the penalty for the importation of 'abortion pills', leaving users free to get medical help if they need it.

I think it might be quicker to focus on introducing the new legislation, rather than first starting with amending the current legislation.

However, once the referendum results have been signed off by the President, maybe the DPP can issue guidelines or the like about situations where they will or won't seek prosecutions under the current laws. It wouldn't have the weight in law as amended legislation, but I think it would have the same effect in practice and should be quicker to implement.

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

However, once the referendum results have been signed off by the President, maybe the DPP can issue guidelines or the like about situations where they will or won't seek prosecutions under the current laws

Since the authorities have been studiously ignoring this issue up to now, I think they will just keep quietly looking the other way for the rest of the year.

antiskeptic

ELM327 wrote: »

Clutching at straws.... it's too late for that.

It's never too late for a legal challenge. Not even after the introduction of the law. For if the basis on which the law was introduced is found faulty, then too the law which rests upon it

The no side has been well and truly beaten 2:1, an unheard of result for such a supposedly contentious issue.

If it was found that the referendum was skewed in favour of a YES, the 2:1 wouldn't matter a darn.

Do you know what foundations are? And do you know what pyrite does to foundations and the structure above?

davedanon

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's never too late for a legal challenge. Not even after the introduction of the law. For if the basis on which the law was introduced is found faulty, then too the law which rests upon it



If it was found that the referendum was skewed in favour of a YES, the 2:1 wouldn't matter a darn.

Do you know what foundations are? And do you know what pyrite does to foundations and the structure above?

You're really having a hard time accepting defeat, aren't you?

ELM327

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's never too late for a legal challenge. Not even after the introduction of the law. For if the basis on which the law was introduced is found faulty, then too the law which rests upon it



If it was found that the referendum was skewed in favour of a YES, the 2:1 wouldn't matter a darn.

Do you know what foundations are? And do you know what pyrite does to foundations and the structure above?

It's done.
Move on.
The foundations and the structure and everything else of the no side was obliterated last friday. McGuirk, Steen, Sherlock, Toibin et al were decimated in the ballot box. You could have included the entire orange order from the north and still lost.


It's done.
A more productive use of the time on the no side would be to self analyse why you lost. Scaremongering and lies and emotive language and shock tactics on posters don't wash with the Irish public in 2018.

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Utterly irrelevant to the legal standing of the result. You can read about referenda in the Constitution itself, article 46 and 47.

"The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen."

If one has a personal right to be adequately represented. Could it be that the referendum pass but the laws deriving from that referendum cannot be invoked?

Anyway. One to watch.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could it be that the referendum pass but the laws deriving from that referendum cannot be invoked?

No.

This has been another edition of simple answers to desperate questions.

robarmstrong

ELM327 wrote: »

It's done.
A more productive use of the time on the no side would be to self analyse why you lost. Scaremongering and lies and emotive language and shock tactics on posters don't wash with the Irish public in 2018.

Or focus all of their "compassion" on helping the born children that are homeless or in need rather than going to the wall over menial things now.

ELM327

The weather was too nice on polling day, can we re-run the election?


The rest of the country is invalid as they have too many home to vote. We want to re-run the referendum only in donegal.

davedanon

robarmstrong wrote: »

Or focus all of their "compassion" on helping the born children that are homeless or in need rather than going to the wall over menial things now.

Oh, I think we all know their attitude on that score.

They mostly care about notional children. Not live or dead ones.

Zubeneschamali

ELM327 wrote: »

The rest of the country is invalid as they have too many home to vote. We want to re-run the referendum only in donegal.

Turns out that Donegal the county voted Yes.

The bit of the county which makes up Donegal the constituency is missing 2 of its top 10 towns, ceded to Sligo/Leitrim to balance the numbers.

antiskeptic

davedanon wrote: »

You're really having a hard time accepting defeat, aren't you?

Ironically, not as bad as I thought it would be. There is a certain amount of shrugging of the shoulders and let folk reap whatever it is they wish to sow.


Anyone like to have a crack at how the Citizen's Assembly was representative?

professore

alchemist33 wrote: »

The government made it very clear what they were going to if there was a Yes vote. If people didn't want that they should have voted No and let this or another government go again with different proposals.
But the only vote that counts is the one being counnnted now and thats a big Yes. That's the governments mandate to legislate as they said they would.

I voted No on this basis. I could make a strong case to myself to vote Yes but my conscience is clear that I voted no so not too miffed with the outcome.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

Anyone like to have a crack at how the Citizen's Assembly was representative?

Representative how? According to what requirement written in which law? The CA is an advisory body only. The Government can bin its proposals, long finger them, refer them to an all party committee, whatever they like. You have no right to be represented on every advisory body or think tank in the state.

That said, I think it is quite remarkable that at the CA, 64% of the members recommended that the termination of pregnancy without restriction
should be lawful.

People said they were mad, MAD! That was the dreaded Abortion on Demand! They were a gang of pointy-headed out of touch liberal professor types! It'd go nowhere! Just wait til the No campaign gets in gear, it'll be decimated! Who do they think they are??

And ultimately, 66% of the electorate agreed with them.

The Bishop Basher

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

People were voting on repealing the 8th.

The legislation will be whatever Simon feels he can get through the Dail next Autumn assuming we still have the same farce of a non government, assuming Sinn Fein can change their party stance which will require a vote, and assuming Simon is still minister for health.

A week is a long time in politics.

A Summer is a lifetime..

Zubeneschamali

Rennaws wrote: »

The legislation will be whatever Simon feels he can get through the Dail next Autumn assuming we still have the same farce of a non government and assuming Simon is still minister for health.

That is the usual story - with the TDs we have in Dail Eireann, what can we pass?

This is a bit different - this legislation has far more public support than the Government has. FG would be only delighted to be bring it to the Dáil and have the opposition vote against it making it a General Election issue.

FF are too cute to fall for that one.

antiskeptic

Rennaws wrote: »

Simon

The YES minister.

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

FF are too cute to fall for that one.

Hmmm. If they took the stance that the mandate-to-be-inferred-from-the-referendum was for a more restricted abortion (per e.g. the RTE poll) they could capture more of the vote?

I mean, they'd pick up the No's (vindicating and revitalising the No TD's, perhaps saving Michaels neck in the process) and might not loose that many Yes's. Martin would have the best of both worlds

If they seek to represent the people more than Fine Gael do then what harm?

.......

This post has been deleted.

davedanon

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is the usual story - with the TDs we have in Dail Eireann, what can we pass?

This is a bit different - this legislation has far more public support than the Government has. FG would be only delighted to be bring it to the Dáil and have the opposition vote against it making it a General Election issue.

FF are too cute to fall for that one.

Yeah, I agree. I also think that, unlike our NO friends desperately hoping that someone pulls a legal rabbit out of a hat, or just turns time back to last week and makes the referendum unhappen, anyone in Dail Eireann attempting to dilute the proposed legislation, or seen to be trying to introduce anything short of what was proposed/promised, will face a massive public backlash come election time. The 'craven politicians' that the NO side suddenly hate following their failure to produce the desired result are the way they are, mostly, because of the need to kowtow to their constituencies' views. Now that the majority of opposing TD's (mostly FF) have found out that the people they represent have more liberal views than they, which way will these craven lickspittle pols go, do you think, hmmm?

ELM327

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hmmm. If they took the stance that the mandate-to-be-inferred-from-the-referendum was for a more restricted abortion (per e.g. the RTE poll) they could capture more of the vote?

I mean, they'd pick up the No's and might not loose that many Yes's..

If they seek to represent the people more than Fine Gael do then what harm?

We've been over this with you already.
The harm is female bodily autonomy
As a male, I will leave the world as a corpse. At no time since sentience do I have, or would I ever have as a corpse, the same lack of autonomy that a woman HAD (god it feels good to say that in the past tense) under the 8th.


That's the harm.

davedanon

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hmmm. If they took the stance that the mandate-to-be-inferred-from-the-referendum was for a more restricted abortion (per e.g. the RTE poll) they could capture more of the vote?

I mean, they'd pick up the No's (vindicating and revitalising the No TD's) and might not loose that many Yes's. Martin would have the best of both worlds

If they seek to represent the people more than Fine Gael do then what harm?

I can only assume from this that you in fact live in some sort of alternative universe.

NuMarvel

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's never too late for a legal challenge. Not even after the introduction of the law. For if the basis on which the law was introduced is found faulty, then too the law which rests upon it



If it was found that the referendum was skewed in favour of a YES, the 2:1 wouldn't matter a darn.

Do you know what foundations are? And do you know what pyrite does to foundations and the structure above?

The operative word being If. And those are some pretty big ifs. Were someone to bring a challenge, the onus would be on them to prove those ifs are more than hypotheticals.

The Bishop Basher

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is the usual story - with the TDs we have in Dail Eireann, what can we pass?

This is a bit different - this legislation has far more public support than the Government has. FG would be only delighted to be bring it to the Dáil and have the opposition vote against it making it a General Election issue.

FF are too cute to fall for that one.

This goes way beyond parties though.

As far as i'm aware everyone has a free vote..

TD's as always, will be led by their constituents and that's where I believe the wheels may fall off the "abortion on demand" truck.

I've no doubt that we will get legislation with abortion in some form passed at some stage in the next year.

I think it's way too early to assume that legislation will look anything like what was proposed but we'll see.

I'm open to being completely wrong on this..

Time will tell..

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Representative how? According to what requirement written in which law? The CA is an advisory body only. The Government can bin its proposals, long finger them, refer them to an all party committee, whatever they like. You have no right to be represented on every advisory body or think tank in the state.

Absolutely agree.

However, If the Government chooses to be steered by the Committees findings and the Committee is found to be an easily identifiable farce, then my right not to be misled by the Government arises.

"Personal rights" aren't defined. It would be for the courts, I imagine, to decide whether e.g. deliberate misleading by the Government was an infringement of my rights

I'm no lawyer so just musing on it. Happy to park it and see what, if anything, comes out in the wash by way of legal challenge.

That said, I think it is quite remarkable that at the CA, 64% of the members recommended that the termination of pregnancy without restriction
should be lawful.

Did you read the bit regarding the circumstances whereby this "without restriction" applies?

The Bishop Basher

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'll see you back here in the Autumn :pac:

antiskeptic

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry to piss on your parade, but that wasn't on the ballot paper. Everything not on the ballot paper is inferred / hoped for / subject to change

blanch152

Bredabe wrote: »

Hopefully, one of the first things they do(soonest) removes the penalty for the importation of 'abortion pills', leaving users free to get medical help if they need it.

I actually think this law will remain in place. There are penalties for the importation of other medication not allowed in Ireland. Once the abortion pill is licensed here, expect the law in relation to illegal importation to be enforced as those pills with unknown origins present a threat to womens' health.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's never too late for a legal challenge. Not even after the introduction of the law. For if the basis on which the law was introduced is found faulty, then too the law which rests upon it

If Michael D. Higgins is clever, he will refer the new law to the Supreme Court for testing as to whether it is constitutional. Once the Court rules on that, it can never ever be challenged again.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If it was found that the referendum was skewed in favour of a YES, the 2:1 wouldn't matter a darn.

Do you know what foundations are? And do you know what pyrite does to foundations and the structure above?

Rubbish. how can a referendum be skewed? Of all the desperate balderdash you have spouted, this idea that the make-up of some Citizen's Assembly from 18 months ago affected the outcome of a referendum that was 66% approved really is astounding.

antiskeptic

Rennaws wrote: »

TD's as always, will be led by their constituents and that's where I believe the wheels may fall off the "abortion on demand" truck.

One wonders whether the electorate will be elastic on this. Pulled to the max you "only" manage to get a country split down the middle on the issue of aor12.

Given that their main concern has been alleviated (hard cases), can they be expected to retreat from aor12, now that the war is over?

A bit of buyers remorse, as it were.

.......

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic

blanch152 wrote: »

If Michael D. Higgins is clever, he will refer the new law to the Supreme Court for testing as to whether it is constitutional. Once the Court rules on that, it can never ever be challenged again.

And MDH ain't thick.

Rubbish. how can a referendum be skewed? Of all the desperate balderdash you have spouted, this idea that the make-up of some Citizen's Assembly from 18 months ago affected the outcome of a referendum that was 66% approved really is astounding.

You would have to find the actual flaw in the argument presented so as to jump to this conclusion.

I'm not saying there aren't flaws. It's just that they need teasing out.


The Government didn't pull the idea of a Citizen's Assembly out of a hat for no reason. If it was acceptable to simply put their proposals forward without reference to anyone then why not do that?

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hmmm. If they took the stance that the mandate-to-be-inferred-from-the-referendum was for a more restricted abortion (per e.g. the RTE poll) they could capture more of the vote?

No, because per the RTE poll, the Yes percentage is bigger than the No percentage.

antiskeptic

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Unfortunately, what the NO side said or didn't say has no relevance. What has relevance is what's on the ballot paper. Now I'll grant that if 66% of the electorate had exit polled for aor12 then the politicians would go with "what the public understood themselves to be voting for"

But since it's split, and if it's advantageous to them to deviate from aor12, then "the will of the people expressed through what's written on the ballot" will out

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

"The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen."

If one has a personal right to be adequately represented. Could it be that the referendum pass but the laws deriving from that referendum cannot be invoked?

Anyway. One to watch.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Absolutely agree.

However, If the Government chooses to be steered by the Committees findings and the Committee is found to be an easily identifiable farce, then my right not to be misled by the Government arises.

"Personal rights" aren't defined. It would be for the courts, I imagine, to decide whether e.g. deliberate misleading by the Government was an infringement of my rights

I'm no lawyer so just musing on it. Happy to park it and see what, if anything, comes out in the wash by way of legal challenge.



Did you read the bit regarding the circumstances whereby this "without restriction" applies?

This is just fantasy, unbelievable fantasy,

I am not a lawyer either, you need a Level 8 qualification to call yourself a lawyer, but I have other legal qualifications at a lower level, including one that had a measure of constitutional law. Simply put, a first year law student would fail a law course if tried to put forward a legal argument such as the one you are posing, it just doesn't add up in any way.

How can your individual right to be represented (which isn't specified in the Constitution) trump the right of the 66% who voted to amend the Constitution (a right of theirs which is explicitly enshrined in the Constitution)?

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, because per the RTE poll, the Yes percentage is bigger than the No percentage.

I'm afraid 52/48 with a margin of error estimated (it turned out to be larger) than 1.6 percent is insufficient a fig leaf.

Remember: if a politician deems proportional representation on the matter advantageous then no matter if it actually was 52/48

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

You would have to find the actual flaw in the argument presented so as to jump to this conclusion.

I'm not saying there aren't flaws. It's just that they need teasing out.


The Government didn't pull the idea of a Citizen's Assembly out of a hat for no reason. If it was acceptable to simply put their proposals forward without reference to anyone then why not do that?

You forget that the Citizen's Assembly came before the debate on the Referendum Bill in the Dail. The Citizen's Assembly made a recommendation, the Dail considered it and subsequently endorsed it, and the people then voted on it and approved.

The Court will rule that as the Oireachtas had every right to amend the Citizen's Assembly proposal and every opportunity to do so, your right to representation was fully respected. Simple as that, case dismissed at first hearing and full costs awarded against the plaintiff for wasting the Court's time.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm no lawyer

Yes, we can tell.

To be quite clear - the Government could decide on what to put into a Referendum bill by consulting the ghost of Leo's childhood family pet dog with a Ouija board if they want. It is completely up to them, and there is no law that says you, I, the CA or anyone else has any say, input or right to representation on the matter.

The representation bit comes when that Bill is put in front of the Oireachteas. Some knuckle-draggers even represented you there and voted against having a referendum on the topic, but not enough, you lost.

And then you comprehensively lost the referendum, too.

So far you have come up with no grounds to challenge that result, just a bunch of makey-up law talking nonsense.

antiskeptic

blanch152 wrote: »

How can your individual right to be represented (which isn't specified in the Constitution)

Does a personal right have to be defined in the constitution in order to be a personal right. Can it be that the intent of the constitution re: personal rights clarifies those rights subsequent to the Constitution?

trump the right of the 66% who voted to amend the Constitution (a right of theirs which is explicitly enshrined in the Constitution)?

If my rights to be adequately represented were infringed upon by government deceit (let's say) then so were everybody's.

Which way they voted being impacted by the misrepresentation.

I mean, I would have voted YES had the Government legislated for hard cases only. By misrepresenting the view of the people (via the CA) and basing their proposals on that misrepresentation, the goverment caused me to vote No instead of Yes.

Similar story with YES voters if it were found they'd been sold a pup that this is the only way to achieve legislation for hard cases aided and abetted by the CA report.

Put it this way: if the Government is found to be manipulating things. If they are found to be leading the electorate down the garden path through use of a puppet (the CA) is there any recourse to personal rights not being vindicated. Have I a right not to be lied to by my Government, for instance?

antiskeptic

blanch152 wrote: »

You forget that the Citizen's Assembly came before the debate on the Referendum Bill in the Dail. The Citizen's Assembly made a recommendation, the Dail considered it and subsequently endorsed it, and the people then voted on it and approved.

The Court will rule that as the Oireachtas had every right to amend the Citizen's Assembly proposal and every opportunity to do so, your right to representation was fully respected. Simple as that, case dismissed at first hearing and full costs awarded against the plaintiff for wasting the Court's time.

Why did the Government bother with a CA if it didn't have to?

NuMarvel

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does a personal right have to be defined in the constitution in order to be a personal right. Can it be that the intent of the constitution re: personal rights clarifies those rights subsequent to the Constitution?




If my rights to be adequately represented were infringed upon by government deceit (let's say) then so where there's. Which way they voted being impacted by the misrepresentation.

I mean, I would have voted YES had the Government legislated for hard cases only. By misrepresenting the view of the people (via the CA) and basing their proposals on that misrepresentation, the goverment caused me to vote No instead of Yes.

Similar story with YES voters if it were found they'd been sold a pup that this is the only way to achieve legislation for hard cases

I would refer you to the first law of holes:

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, we can tell.

To be quite clear - the Government could decide on what to put into a Referendum bill by consulting the ghost of Leo's childhood family pet dog with a Ouija board if they want. It is completely up to them, and there is no law that says you, I, the CA or anyone else has any say, input or right to representation on the matter.

Understood. The Government didn't need the CA.

But it choose to place the CA in front of their desired intent (supposing my sig arguments are correct for the moment) so as to maks their desired intent with a facade neutrality. Citizens of Oirland: this was decided upon by you, not us.

In an article regarding my right to suppose something unconstitutional and take a case regarding it (the article recognizes that fundamental rights aren't all defined in the Constitution)

The right to fair procedures

The courts, and all other bodies or persons making decisions that affect you, must treat you fairly. There are two essential rules of fair procedure.

•The person making the decision that affects you should not be biased or appear to be biased.

If screwed over by the Government, has the nation entire been treated fairly by a body called the Government in the context of a referendum?

Think class action.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

Think class action.

Think dead dog seance.

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why did the Government bother with a CA if it didn't have to?

The Government often uses consultancies to prepare recommendations, civil servants to draft proposals, public consultation before preparing legislation etc. All of these, including a Citizen's Assembly, are useful inputs to decisions of the Government and of the Oireachtas, but they are only inputs.

Here is a list of the current public consultations from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform:

https://www.per.gov.ie/en/public-consultations/

And all Departments have these, how else do they get ideas?

You should really drop this nonsense.