Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Ok well I think it would be better for the tax payer to fund contraception rather than housing, education, healthcare or abortions for unplanned children. I think if two children are going to have sex then they are going to do it no matter what (and it happens every day) so I think it is better for everyone if they have easy access to contraception. Would I rather they were educated properly and refrain? Of course! But this is the real world. I am not just talking about children (which critics of my post creepily seem to be focusing on), as I have said, it should be free for everyone young or old. As regards grooming/incest and hormone based solutions, yes I can see problems with that, this I have already conceded

You said "any age, no questions asked" to save on taxes. That's why people are - perfectly naturally - focussing on that because if you mean it, then it's rather worrying that you would prioritise taxpayer savings over child welfare.

But perhaps you have now changed your mind on that point?

Kidchameleon

volchitsa wrote: »

You said "any age, no questions asked" to save on taxes. That's why people are - perfectly naturally - focussing on that because if you mean it, then it's rather worrying that you would prioritise taxpayer savings over child welfare.

But perhaps you have now changed your mind on that point?

Im trying to think of a situation where an adult grooming a child would have that child tasked with procuring contraception.

If a scenario were to come to pass where a victim of abuse was sent to get contraception, I imagine it would be probable that the perpetrator would instruct the child about what to say, so I am not sure how useful questioning them would be.

This is speculative but I would imagine the vast majority of people seeking contraception would not be victims of abuse

Bredabe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Im trying to think of a situation where an adult grooming a child would have that child tasked with procuring contraception.

If a scenario were to come to pass where a victim of abuse was sent to get contraception, I imagine it would be probable that the perpetrator would instruct the child about what to say, so I am not sure how useful questioning them would be.

This is speculative but I would imagine the vast majority
of people seeking contraception would not be victims of abuse

It could be that the child involved has the knowledge of the need and availability of contraception in their situation.

While the child involved may lie about that, they could well give themselves away by their use of language or body language.

aloyisious

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Im trying to think of a situation where an adult grooming a child would have that child tasked with procuring contraception.

If a scenario were to come to pass where a victim of abuse was sent to get contraception, I imagine it would be probable that the perpetrator would instruct the child about what to say, so I am not sure how useful questioning them would be.

This is speculative but I would imagine the vast majority of people seeking contraception would not be victims of abuse

To me, there seems to be one major fault in your speculation[for the debate here] that underage children would be sent to get contraceptives by another person and that is that the child would be liable to questioning as to the purpose they were sought for. It would be a lot safer for the O/P to get the item themselves from the chemist or stockist and cut out the risk of a law-abiding person asking awkward questions. BTW I am assuming that by underage children you mean female underage children and that the person sending the child to the chemist to get the contraceptive is an adult.

Cabaal

Interesting Vice News coverage of abortion laws in USA.

https://youtu.be/cPn7kS8JAbw?t=810

Seems to me that they are taking a leaf out of the Repeal The 8th handbook by simply focusing on women and couples and telling their stories.

It worked effectively in Ireland to get people to realise that strict abortion laws cause great upset and suffering to couples/mothers in relation to much wanted pregnancy;s

Igotadose

Simon Harris, best Health Secretary in Irish History*, now saying exclusion zones to be discussed in the Dail once it resumes in September:
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/simon-harris-says-hospital-exclusion-zones-a-priority-following-inhumane-pro-life-protest-936350.html

*:He helped get the eighth repealed and worked to get the legislation done in time. Yes, there's lots to complain about in the Health Service, but that bit is nothing new.

Bredabe

All amendments passed for NI, could be signed into law this evening.

October 20th I think is the day of the legal change, anyone think it will be quite there in the interim?

#thenorthisNOW

*EDIT, unlikely to be signed into law tonight as it has to pass the house of lords, unlikely to meet much opposition there. October 21/22 still the day the law changes there.

Cabaal

Bredabe wrote: »

All amendments passed for NI, could be signed into law this evening.

October 20th I think is the day of the legal change, anyone think it will be quite there in the interim?

#thenorthisNOW

Its going to be interesting,
Do the DUP hate SF more or do they hate gay people and abortion more?

In order to form the government SF not have the upper hand and can demand that the DUP accept a stand alone Irish language Act among other things, previously the DUP have flat out refused to accept it.

Even if the DUP agree to it SF can demand some other things :pac:

If the DUP refuse then Northern Ireland gets equality's that the rest of the UK already has! :pac:

Its loose loose for DUP on this...although in the meantime SF fail to represent Northern Ireland's interests for not leaving the EU and not having a no deal exit. So SF are still not coming out great out of this one way or another.

aloyisious

Bredabe wrote: »

All amendments passed for NI, could be signed into law this evening.

October 20th I think is the day of the legal change, anyone think it will be quite there in the interim?

#thenorthisNOW

*EDIT, unlikely to be signed into law tonight as it has to pass the house of lords, unlikely to meet much opposition there. October 21/22 still the day the law changes there.

OK, I'm going out on the blind now. Is there any chance that the new head of the UK Govt [if it's Boris] can pull some stunt which can delay or cause any change in the law which the vote in both Westminster houses forces through for N/I? He may well want votes from people from outside his party IN THE FUTURE, if his plan to shut down parliament to stop it voting on his Brexit without a deal plan is any indication.

Edit: I see from google info that Ulster Scots has been recognized as a official language by the Govt since 1999 so SF cant use that as a bargaining chip.

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

OK, I'm going out on the blind now. Is there any chance that the new head of the UK Govt [if it's Boris] can pull some stunt which can delay or cause any change in the law which the vote in both Westminster houses forces through for N/I? He may well want votes from people from outside his party IN THE FUTURE, if his plan to shut down parliament to stop it voting on his Brexit without a deal plan is any indication.

Delay, certainly. What the just-passed law says is that, if the NI executive and assembly are not back up and running by a certain date, the SoS for NI (who has the power to legislate for NI when the assembly is not operating) must make regulations extending equal marriage and access to abortion to NI. However SFAIK no time limit for making those regulations is specified.

This is not going to be a quick process. The new legislation does not say that NI law on these subjects in NI is to be the same as it is in England and Wales (or Scotland, or Ireland - all three jurisdictions have different legal laws in relation to both matters). It just sets out a broad principle, but leaves the details of how that principle is to be given effect in legislation to be worked out later.

This would normally take a while. There'd be reviews of the current law on marriage and on abortion, to see in what respects they fail to comply with the principles, or meet the standards, set out in the new legislation. There would normally be a consultation process, in which the government issues a paper discussing the issues, suggesting ways in which they might be addressed through legislation, and inviting observations from interested stakeholders. There'd then be draft legislation published, and comments invited. Finally, the legislation could be made. It could take a year or more (or less) and, crucially, how fast the process goes depends in part on how enthusiastically the government approaches it. So if they want to soft-pedal it, there is certainly scope for that.

Mark Hamill

Bredabe wrote: »

#thenorthisNOW

I don't think hash-tags in general are for me, I read that hash-tag as "Then or This NOW" and was mightily confused for a moment :pac:

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't think hash-tags in general are for me, I read that hash-tag as "Then or This NOW" and was mightily confused for a moment :pac:

#CapitalsAreYourFriend

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't think hash-tags in general are for me, I read that hash-tag as "Then or This NOW" and was mightily confused for a moment :pac:

Susan Bolye's album party comes to mind

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

Delay, certainly. What the just-passed law says is that, if the NI executive and assembly are not back up and running by a certain date, the SoS for NI (who has the power to legislate for NI when the assembly is not operating) must make regulations extending equal marriage and access to abortion to NI. However SFAIK no time limit for making those regulations is specified.

This is not going to be a quick process. The new legislation does not say that NI law on these subjects in NI is to be the same as it is in England and Wales (or Scotland, or Ireland - all three jurisdictions have different legal laws in relation to both matters). It just sets out a broad principle, but leaves the details of how that principle is to be given effect in legislation to be worked out later.

This would normally take a while. There'd be reviews of the current law on marriage and on abortion, to see in what respects they fail to comply with the principles, or meet the standards, set out in the new legislation. There would normally be a consultation process, in which the government issues a paper discussing the issues, suggesting ways in which they might be addressed through legislation, and inviting observations from interested stakeholders. There'd then be draft legislation published, and comments invited. Finally, the legislation could be made. It could take a year or more (or less) and, crucially, how fast the process goes depends in part on how enthusiastically the government approaches it. So if they want to soft-pedal it, there is certainly scope for that.

So it should be interesting to see who the No 10 resident appoints to the Sos for NI position. I assume any laws brought into play in N/I by the SoS would be designed to lapse and be non-effective in law in N/I if the assembly got together and the parties there cobbled together a local working arrangements government deal and introduced/passed laws legalizing both abortion and civil marriage equality.

If I'm reading things right, the best thing people in N/I who are Pro-choice and Pro Civil Marriage equality can/should hope for is that S/F and DUP don't get Stormont up and running again till the certain date deadline is gone by and things are irrevocable. After that date is gone by, the only thing any N/I Govt cobbled together by the two parties can do is fiddle and debate perspectives in law, they cant bat away what the deadline has made irrevocable. On that basis, the best thing for S/F to do is NOT to re-enter Govt with the DUP and they come out smelling of roses when it comes to their base south of the border.

Its hard for me to tell if the same would apply for them in N/I as S/F seems to use a different rulebook north of the border when it comes to Irish persons civil rights there, as distinct from the Irish persons civil rights rulebook they use south of the border on the two issues. Any news reports I see about S/F's N/I stance on the abortion rights issue is that it differs from their south of the border stance.

Any delay in the N/I parties coming to an accord in respect to an inevitable passing of laws by them legalizing Civil Marriage equality and Abortion is something the persons of N/I can/should hold them to account for. Leastways that's what I would appreciate in respect to changes in N/I Civil law on the two issues as legalized in law in the mainland UK and in the republic. People to politicians: Do As I Say Or Else!

Bredabe

Peregrinus wrote: »

Delay, certainly. What the just-passed law says is that, if the NI executive and assembly are not back up and running by a certain date, the SoS for NI (who has the power to legislate for NI when the assembly is not operating) must make regulations extending equal marriage and access to abortion to NI. However SFAIK no time limit for making those regulations is specified.

This is not going to be a quick process. The new legislation does not say that NI law on these subjects in NI is to be the same as it is in England and Wales (or Scotland, or Ireland - all three jurisdictions have different legal laws in relation to both matters). It just sets out a broad principle, but leaves the details of how that principle is to be given effect in legislation to be worked out later.

This would normally take a while. There'd be reviews of the current law on marriage and on abortion, to see in what respects they fail to comply with the principles, or meet the standards, set out in the new legislation. There would normally be a consultation process, in which the government issues a paper discussing the issues, suggesting ways in which they might be addressed through legislation, and inviting observations from interested stakeholders. There'd then be draft legislation published, and comments invited. Finally, the legislation could be made. It could take a year or more (or less) and, crucially, how fast the process goes depends in part on how enthusiastically the government approaches it. So if they want to soft-pedal it, there is certainly scope for that.

From what I read, it seems it will become legal on that October date, regardless(as its in the hands of higher govt), at that point, things like importation or seeking info would be available freely.

aloyisious

Bredabe wrote: »

From what I read, it seems it will become legal on that October date, regardless(as its in the hands of higher govt), at that point, things like importation or seeking info would be available freely.

There's the existence of current laws introduced from within N/I forbidding some practices with criminal sanction against offenders. Hopefully any legalities introduced as a result of the Westminster votes and a new Sec of State will include provisions that set aside/annul each and every piece of existing N/I local legislation against abortion services, advice and civil marriage equality. The new changes must be proof from any challenge within the N/I courts system.

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

Any news reports I see about S/F's N/I stance on the abortion rights issue is that it differs from their south of the border stance.

They don't seem to be entirely clear about their stance.
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/abortion-sinn-fein-backs-westminster-legislation-after-near-two-week-silence-1-9007728

Yesterday Sinn Fein did not contradict what Mrs Foster had said, but told the Nolan Show that “Arlene Foster should not speak for Sinn Fein”. The party said it did not support the extension of the 1967 Abortion Act – which is less radical than the proposed legislation – to Northern Ireland.

Does anyone know if it has to be all or nothing with this legislation? Will it be possible for the NI Executive, if it ever gets up and running again, to 'water it down' on terms agreed by SF and the DUP? Or if SF tries to do that, would it be opening the way for the DUP to block liberalisation entirely?

Igotadose

Piece in the Journal about conscientious objection impacting the ability to provide needed medical services in hospitals in Ireland:
https://www.thejournal.ie/conscientious-objection-abortion-hospital-4725826-Jul2019/

This is too bad. The conscientious objectors should be consolidated into one hospital and replaced with legitimate medical providers so women's health and wellbeing can be supported. Plus the conscientious objectors names should be available so women can choose properly when deciding which medical facility to use. Relying on a 'grapevine' for that information is fraught with peril, when time is of the essence.

Cabaal

Igotadose wrote: »

Piece in the Journal about conscientious objection impacting the ability to provide needed medical services in hospitals in Ireland:
https://www.thejournal.ie/conscientious-objection-abortion-hospital-4725826-Jul2019/

This is too bad. The conscientious objectors should be consolidated into one hospital and replaced with legitimate medical providers so women's health and wellbeing can be supported. Plus the conscientious objectors names should be available so women can choose properly when deciding which medical facility to use. Relying on a 'grapevine' for that information is fraught with peril, when time is of the essence.

It's deeply concerning if we allow these people to have their way, at the end of the day if a medical treatment is legal and should be provided under the HSE then the doctors should be providing that service.

It's also a slippery slope, whats next...
- extreme Christian and Muslim male doctors refusing to treat/touch women?
- people refusing to treat/touch people of colour due to religious beliefs?
- Jehovah's Witnesses doctors refusing to use blood donations in hospitals?

Peregrinus

"What about secularist doctors who refuse to treat religious patients?"

We can all play whataboutery, Cabaal. "Extreme Christian and Muslim male doctors refusing to treat/touch women" is not a real-world problem, not least because neither Christianity nor Islam forbids doctors from treating or touching women. I don't think inventing pejorative characterisations of people you don't like is a terribly useful contribution to a discussion of this kind.

Interestingly, JW doctors not using blood products is a real thing. But it's not a problem or a "slippery slope", since there are more than enough doctors who are perfectly willing to use blood products to meet medical needs. Indeed, it's had positive spinoffs; JW hospitals have pioneered bloodless surgery techniques which have later proven very useful in dealing with patients who, for reasons which may be either religious or medical, won't or can't accept blood products. And they have proven useful in situations arising when the supply of blood products is contaminated or uncertain. (Some of us are old enough to remember the Hepatitis C crisis.) There's a positive side to diversity of approaches to medical practice; before you suppress that diversity you need to demonstrate a need to do so.

The issue here is not whether every single doctor in the country should be forced to behave the way we think he should behave or named, shamed and victimised for not doing so; it's whether women can access the services they need, and are entitled to. For this purpose women don't need help identifying (and "consolidating into one hospital") the doctors who don't provide the service they want; they need to be able to utilise the services of the doctors who do. That's where the focus has to be.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

"What about secularist doctors who refuse to treat religious patients?"

We can all play whataboutery, Cabaal. "Extreme Christian and Muslim male doctors refusing to treat/touch women" is not a real-world problem, not least because neither Christianity nor Islam forbids doctors from treating or touching women. I don't think inventing pejorative characterisations of people you don't like is a terribly useful contribution to a discussion of this kind.

Interestingly, JW doctors not using blood products is a real thing. But it's not a problem or a "slippery slope", since there are more than enough doctors who are perfectly willing to use blood products to meet medical needs. Indeed, it's had positive spinoffs; JW hospitals have pioneered bloodless surgery techniques which have later proven very useful in dealing with patients who, for reasons which may be either religious or medical, won't or can't accept blood products. And they have proven useful in situations arising when the supply of blood products is contaminated or uncertain. (Some of us are old enough to remember the Hepatitis C crisis.) There's a positive side to diversity of approaches to medical practice; before you suppress that diversity you need to demonstrate a need to do so.

The issue here is not whether every single doctor in the country should be forced to behave the way we think he should behave or named, shamed and victimised for not doing so; it's whether women can access the services they need, and are entitled to. For this purpose women don't need help identifying (and "consolidating into one hospital") the doctors who don't provide the service they want; they need to be able to utilise the services of the doctors who do. That's where the focus has to be.

No I think you'll find that it wasn't JW doctors refusing to give patients blood (that would be illegal) but JW patients refusing to be given blood, and doctors trying to find ways to treat them anyway.

It is actually very problematic how doctors are apparently entitled to refuse to care for patients in this particular instance. The fact that other examples have n't yet become a problem (such as female doctors refusing to touch male patients) is not a good enough reason to suppose it won't become one in the future. A few years ago, female teachers wanting to remain fully veiled in the classroom wasn't an issue either, and now it is. This is the problem with allowing religious exceptions to the general rule: by definition it can never satisfy the religious until all their rules are fully applied. Because they are right. The very definition of a slippery slope.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

"What about secularist doctors who refuse to treat religious patients?"

:rolleyes: Poor effort, P.

"Extreme Christian and Muslim male doctors refusing to treat/touch women" is not a real-world problem, not least because neither Christianity nor Islam forbids doctors from treating or touching women.

You never heard the one about gynaecologists in Saudi Arabia using mirrors, then?

The issue here is not whether every single doctor in the country should be forced to behave the way we think he should behave or named, shamed and victimised for not doing so

It's called "acting in the best interests of the patient", not putting one's own religious beliefs above the interests of the patient.

it's whether women can access the services they need, and are entitled to. For this purpose women don't need help identifying (and "consolidating into one hospital") the doctors who don't provide the service they want; they need to be able to utilise the services of the doctors who do. That's where the focus has to be.

Tell that to women in Kilkenny, Sligo, Donegal...

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

The issue here is not whether every single doctor in the country should be forced to behave the way we think he should behave or named, shamed and victimised for not doing so; it's whether women can access the services they need, and are entitled to. For this purpose women don't need help identifying (and "consolidating into one hospital") the doctors who don't provide the service they want; they need to be able to utilise the services of the doctors who do. That's where the focus has to be.

I never said a doctor should be forced or even suggested this,

Bottom line is if they don't want to do something that legals under HSE/laws then go find other employment.

Its all very well to say there's other doctors, but there are two problems with this
- Other doctors mean extra cost for the tax payer to employee them
- No all hospitals have those doctors, for example St Lukes in Kilkenny where all of the doctors refuse to perform a legal medical procedure...they are being lead by a prominent pro-life doctor who was involved in the ref.
- Random hospitals refusing to provide a legal medical procedure means women can live in a county that doesn't offer the services even though they have a large hospital locally!

Hotblack Desiato

Cabaal wrote: »

- No all hospitals have those doctors, for example St Lukes in Kilkenny where all of the doctors refuse to perform a legal medical procedure...they are being lead by a prominent pro-life doctor who was involved in the ref.

...who is also accused of carrying out gynaecological procedures without consent.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/gynaecologist-performed-exploratory-work-without-consent-1.3935167

Cabaal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

...who is also accused of carrying out gynaecological procedures without consent.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/gynaecologist-performed-exploratory-work-without-consent-1.3935167

I was referring to Trevor Hayes
https://kilkennynow.ie/kilkenny-consultant-bullying-maternity-professionals-into-performing-abortions-will-lead-to-a-greater-crisis-in-the-health-system/

smacl

Cabaal wrote: »

I was referring to Trevor Hayes
https://kilkennynow.ie/kilkenny-consultant-bullying-maternity-professionals-into-performing-abortions-will-lead-to-a-greater-crisis-in-the-health-system/

The issue here is that this goes a long way beyond personal conscientious objection, from the article

Dr Trevor Hayes wrote:

Last month’s letter to the IEHG said following discussions between the four consultant obstetricians at St Luke's, it was “decided unanimously that the hospital is not an appropriate location for medical or surgical terminations”.

What this guy is trying to do is to subvert the public health system in favour of his own beliefs which are in stark contrast to the will of the people. While he may reasonably say that he is personally not willing to carry out an abortion, it is not for him to say that abortions should not be carried out in the hospital in which he works. That is not conscientious objection.

uptherebels

Cabaal wrote: »

I was referring to Trevor Hayes
https://kilkennynow.ie/kilkenny-consultant-bullying-maternity-professionals-into-performing-abortions-will-lead-to-a-greater-crisis-in-the-health-system/

Ya he doesn't seem to be the most competent either
https://www.shannonside.ie/news/doctor-admits-several-instances-poor-professional-performance-medical-council-inquiry/

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

The issue here is not whether every single doctor in the country should be forced to behave the way we think he should behave or named, shamed and victimised for not doing so; it's whether women can access the services they need, and are entitled to. For this purpose women don't need help identifying (and "consolidating into one hospital") the doctors who don't provide the service they want; they need to be able to utilise the services of the doctors who do. That's where the focus has to be.

I agree with you on the point you made above which I've copied to fit the "What women need" angle [it's whether women can access the services they need, and are entitled to. For this purpose women don't need help identifying (and "consolidating into one hospital") the doctors who don't provide the service they want; they need to be able to utilise the services of the doctors who do. That's where the focus has to be]. To that end I'd suggest that women know who will provide the service they want. To that end a list of doctors WHO WILL provide the service would be essential to avoid any side-lining of the woman's choice after admission to a maternity hospital.

Ref the other point you made [The issue here is not whether every single doctor in the country should be forced to behave the way we think he should behave or named, shamed and victimised for not doing so] making a list of Doctors WHO DONT would NOT be shaming or victimizing doctors, it would be because some doctors oppose abortion. I reckon by now such doctors will not be hiding their choices where it comes to providing or cooperating with abortion procedures and would prefer to move away from abortion-providing hospitals.

Doctors who oppose abortion would have to be avoided by those women so it goes without saying that women should be FULLY AWARE of doctors whose assistance they need to decline. Either that or the hospitals themselves do the job of delisting from their call-upon doctors lists of doctors who will deny women the service they are legally entitled to. Some-one is going to have to ensure maternity hospital patients have confidence in their doctors and care in the hospitals. To do otherwise would be to deliberately put the health of the women at risk beyond the natural ones they face during pregnancy.

Igotadose

aloyisious wrote: »

Ref the other point you made [The issue here is not whether every single doctor in the country should be forced to behave the way we think he should behave or named, shamed and victimised for not doing so] making a list of Doctors WHO DONT would NOT be shaming or victimizing doctors, it would be because some doctors oppose abortion. I reckon by now such doctors will not be hiding their choices where it comes to providing or cooperating with abortion procedures and would prefer to move away from abortion-providing hospitals.

Doctors who oppose abortion would have to be avoided by those women so it goes without saying that women should be FULLY AWARE of doctors whose assistance they need to decline. Either that or the hospitals themselves do the job of delisting from their call-upon doctors lists of doctors who will deny women the service they are legally entitled to. Some-one is going to have to ensure maternity hospital patients have confidence in their doctors and care in the hospitals. To do otherwise would be to deliberately put the health of the women at risk beyond the natural ones they face during pregnancy.

Let's not underestimate the difficulty in getting this kind of information out to the general public. We merrily chat online all day, but the anti-abortion forces as we are well aware put fake information out there, fake 'mychoice' sites, redirect innocent women to so-called 'crisis pregnancy centers' that spout lie after lie about abortion, all with the goal of forcing the woman to give birth. At a minimum, the Irish government should publish which hospitals do not provide full abortion services on a central website as well as each hospital's information site, as well as a list of GP's and pharmacies that conscientiously object to abortion. If the abortion pill is not available at a particular pharmacy, there should be a sign on the door about that, as well, so women seeking medication don't go there. The HSE should also keep track of such so as to mitigate the problem of no pharmaceutical coverage for large areas, especially if there's a new pharmacy coming it could influence licensing of said pharmacy should it choose to provide abortion medication in an area where the existing pharmacies don't.

Loafing Oaf

Igotadose wrote: »

If the abortion pill is not available at a particular pharmacy, there should be a sign on the door about that, as well, so women seeking medication don't go there. The HSE should also keep track of such so as to mitigate the problem of no pharmaceutical coverage for large areas, especially if there's a new pharmacy coming it could influence licensing of said pharmacy should it choose to provide abortion medication in an area where the existing pharmacies don't.

My understanding is the abortion pill is not distributed through pharmacies at all.

aloyisious

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

My understanding is the abortion pill is not distributed through pharmacies at all.

Umm, anyone know if this is a maybe decision of HSE, medicines board & medical profession heads together decision on a temporary basis [say deputizing the issue duty to GPs and Gynae specialists issuing the medicines under supervision] until they deem it safe to let others deal with women at the pharmacy counter?

Hotblack Desiato

Cabaal wrote: »

I was referring to Trevor Hayes
https://kilkennynow.ie/kilkenny-consultant-bullying-maternity-professionals-into-performing-abortions-will-lead-to-a-greater-crisis-in-the-health-system/

Aren't the women of Kilkenny lucky that all four obstetricians in St. Lukes are so staunchly pro-life? Hayes, O'Sullivan and two muslim doctors

Kilkenny hospital to appoint extra obstetrician to facilitate abortions

splinter65

Amazing. The country is full of oby/gynaes who refuse to do abortions but when Senator Noone was challenged as to why she could only find pro abortion medical professionals to speak she said she searched and searched for an alternative voice and couldn’t find one.... and the pro life people are supposed to be the liars... it beggars belief.

Cabaal

splinter65 wrote: »

Amazing. The country is full of oby/gynaes who refuse to do abortions but when Senator Noone was challenged as to why she could only find pro abortion medical professionals to speak she said she searched and searched for an alternative voice and couldn’t find one.... and the pro life people are supposed to be the liars... it beggars belief.

Doesn't make anybody a liar,

Being pro life in the background in work and being willing to be very public manner with your views are two different things. Even I can see that...doesn't seem you can so you'd rather called people liars.

One way or another however we know that a majority of the country is pro-choice as proven by the ref and accordingly that should be represented in our medical services. Instead we have a minority of pro-lifers dictating the medical services to a majority of pro-choice people in the country.

The Late Late Show

Cabaal wrote: »

Doesn't make anybody a liar,

Being pro life in the background in work and being willing to be very public manner with your views are two different things. Even I can see that...doesn't seem you can so you'd rather called people liars.

One way or another however we know that a majority of the country is pro-choice as proven by the ref and accordingly that should be represented in our medical services. Instead we have a minority of pro-lifers dictating the medical services to a majority of pro-choice people in the country.

These extreme 'Catholic pro-life' types are sickening. They also are the most vocal in their support of the John Bolton dictatorship in America and the wars they fight. The rights of the unborn seem to matter more than the rights of the born. Okay to killed 1000s of innocent citizens in Tehran who are not even true believers in Islam, the religion Bolton's regime hates most. Pro-lifers also tend to be homophobic and are often holocaust deniers too. Such people should be given their own Republic of Gilead in Antarctica with John Bolton as their messiah.

Hotblack Desiato

Wikipedia wrote:

Bolton was a supporter of the Vietnam War, but purposely avoided military service in Vietnam.

Figures.

Loafing Oaf

splinter65 wrote: »

Amazing. The country is full of oby/gynaes who refuse to do abortions but when Senator Noone was challenged as to why she could only find pro abortion medical professionals to speak she said she searched and searched for an alternative voice and couldn’t find one.... and the pro life people are supposed to be the liars... it beggars belief.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/committee-couldn-t-find-any-anti-abortion-medical-experts-to-argue-for-eighth-1.3397941

Senator Noone said no Irish-based consultants or even GPs were made available to the committee.

“The committee secretariat were in touch with many people, to my knowledge both suggested by the committee and otherwise,” she said. “Nobody was willing to come forward, none who were experts in this country. There was no single GP who offered, or any way indicated, that they wanted the status quo to remain.”

Have any of these anti-abortion doctors indicated that they expressed a wish to appear before the committee but were turned down? If such exist it's a bit surprising that none of them have spoken out, surely it would make excellent propaganda for their cause...

end of the road

The Late Late Show wrote: »

These extreme 'Catholic pro-life' types are sickening. They also are the most vocal in their support of the John Bolton dictatorship in America and the wars they fight. The rights of the unborn seem to matter more than the rights of the born. Okay to killed 1000s of innocent citizens in Tehran who are not even true believers in Islam, the religion Bolton's regime hates most. Pro-lifers also tend to be homophobic and are often holocaust deniers too. Such people should be given their own Republic of Gilead in Antarctica with John Bolton as their messiah.

plenty of non-religious, non-homophobic, John Bolton hating pro-lifers.

Hotblack Desiato

Well then isn't it odd how the anti-repeal campagn was so dominated by anti-women, conservative catholic, far-right homophobes - it sucks when the campaign you ally yourself with is so unrepresentative of all of your views except for *that* one.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Well then isn't it odd how the anti-repeal campagn was so dominated by anti-women, conservative catholic, far-right homophobes - it sucks when the campaign you ally yourself with is so unrepresentative of all of your views except for *that* one.

you can disagree with people on many different things but aline with them on 1 issue. that is the beauty about being one's own person rather then being part of a hive mind. even here, the people who i agree with on this issue, i would disagree with them on most other things. but that is perfectly fine.
if someone is an anti-women, conservative catholic, far-right homophobe then that is very unfortunate and they need to rethink, but if i find myself in agreement with them on something, so be it.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

you can disagree with people on many different things but aline with them on 1 issue. that is the beauty about being one's own person rather then being part of a hive mind. even here, the people who i agree with on this issue, i would disagree with them on most other things. but that is perfectly fine.
if someone is an anti-women, conservative catholic, far-right homophobe then that is very unfortunate and they need to rethink, but if i find myself in agreement with them on something, so be it.

And if someone's support for that particular issue boils down to (let's say) traditional catholic teachings about prolife - or to an incoherent, illogical mess attempting to thinly disguise this fact - then it's fair for others to point this out and to suggest that this is not a coincidence. As many times as necessary.

smacl

volchitsa wrote: »

And if someone's support for that particular issue boils down to (let's say) traditional catholic teachings about prolife - or to an incoherent, illogical mess attempting to thinly disguise this fact - then it's fair for others to point this out and to suggest that this is not a coincidence. As many times as necessary.

Difficult to know the breakdown of numbers, but conservative right wing Christians are certainly the loudest voice among the pro-life brigade. It represents a value system that has been clearly rejected by the people of this country on an number of fronts.

aloyisious

Pearse Doherty TD [Donegal] was on RTE earlier [short interview re new Sec of State N/I] and said, in answer to specific questions, that abortion and extension of civil marriage rights would be discussed between SF and the Sec of State. Mention was also made that the SoS is the former hands-on person with Boris in the Brexit camp.

Hotblack Desiato

I am far from convinced about NI-SF's new-found pro-choice stance...

Cabaal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I am far from convinced about NI-SF's new-found pro-choice stance...

If they decide anything else (pro-life) it'll kill their voting base in the rest of Ireland even more then it already has...especially with younger voters.

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

And if someone's support for that particular issue boils down to (let's say) traditional catholic teachings about prolife - or to an incoherent, illogical mess attempting to thinly disguise this fact - then it's fair for others to point this out and to suggest that this is not a coincidence. As many times as necessary.

sure, as long as it is done to the individuals who have proven to be as such rather then every single one of us.
pro-life is not a hive mind. there is anything from extreme right wingers to leftists like myself.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

sure, as long as it is done to the individuals who have proven to be as such rather then every single one of us.
pro-life is not a hive mind. there is anything from extreme right wingers to leftists like myself.

Well what I was saying is that if they can't actually defend their opinion except with simplistic and somewhat contradictory sloganeering, then IMO that is sufficient proof. Because the VAST majority of anti abortion sentiment in Ireland traditionally comes from the church and its teachings, so it would be surprising to find a sudden and unexplained upsurge in nonreligion-based anti-choice sentiment.
And the proof that this is not the case is that these prolifers can't actually explain their views coherently - because to do so would require them to admit the actual basis of those views.

What level of proof would you require - that they describe themselves as religious? We saw in the referendum that prolifers were up to all sorts of lies and dishonesty, even pretending to be prochoicers at times, so I wouldn't hold out too much hope of them all being honest and upfront about the origins of their beliefs.

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

Well what I was saying is that if they can't actually defend their opinion except with simplistic and somewhat contradictory sloganeering, then IMO that is sufficient proof. Because the VAST majority of anti abortion sentiment in Ireland traditionally comes from the church and its teachings, so it would be surprising to find a sudden and unexplained upsurge in nonreligion-based anti-choice sentiment.
And the proof that this is not the case is that these prolifers can't actually explain their views coherently - because to do so would require them to admit the actual basis of those views.

to be fair from what i can see much of the pro-choice argument was based on simplistic and contradictory sloganeering. there were a few on here who actually did put forward brootley honest arguments which while i disagreed with them, i respected them for their honesty.

volchitsa wrote: »

What level of proof would you require - that they describe themselves as religious?

certainly that would help.

volchitsa wrote: »

We saw in the referendum that prolifers were up to all sorts of lies and dishonesty, even pretending to be prochoicers at times, so I wouldn't hold out too much hope of them all being honest and upfront about the origins of their beliefs.

many of those who you state were pretending to be pro-choice, at least on here, were pro-choice IMO. yes, they didn't stay on message so to speak, but just like pro-life, pro-choice are not a hive mind either.
remember, there generally wasn't a major discussion on the issue before the referendum, so people had questions and a lot of arguments they needed to look through and thrash out. so it may have came across as people pretending to be pro-choice but really i think it was just people discussing and thrashing out everything before making their decision as to how to vote.

aloyisious

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

My understanding is the abortion pill is not distributed through pharmacies at all.

Correct. Hospitals and GP's only, according to a chemist I checked with [to be sure].

Loafing Oaf

end of the road wrote: »

sure, as long as it is done to the individuals who have proven to be as such rather then every single one of us.
pro-life is not a hive mind. there is anything from extreme right wingers to leftists like myself.

My impression is that most Irish pro-life activists, at a grassroots level anyway, have little interest in economic issues at all. For them politics begins and ends with abortion and other 'social issues' prioritised in Catholic teaching.