Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

US Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade

1121315171820

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,182 ✭✭✭✭Overheal



    Something doesn't add up here: their graffiti legibility is top notch, its very evenly spaced, it's not rushed in any way at all .... and with that, they used.... molotov cocktails, a rudimentary hit and run pyro device? They spent more than a few minutes carefully spraying out this message, and then, hurriedly, rushed to completely half assed fail to set the building on fire. Why would you burn it down at all if you wanted a message on the wood side of the building... why would you rush the arson, but be so exacting with your handwriting in spraypaint? Did a molotov push over that leather chair? If the arson wasn't supposed to succeed, why not use something more vindictive, even effective and less likely to incur extreme law enforcement response, like skunk spray?

    Could still be of course these are some really irrational, loopy pro-Roe activists etc. but I guess that's like saying it could also legitimately be Sasquatch until proven otherwise. Wouldn't even be the first time that the Right Wing has tried to use broad side of a barn vandalism to stir up false controversy:




  • Registered Users Posts: 50 ✭✭Dollar Thief


    Brilliant. Abortion laws are far too liberal in the US. At last some protection for unborn babies.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    You are going on and on and on about "late term abortions" and "multiple abortions" on the thread in many posts like this one here without citing any links, statistics, stories or even cherry picked opinion pieces. Could you be more specific, with actual citations not opinion pieces, about what exactly you are talking about? Specifically:

    1) Who exactly is having "multiple abortions per woman" and how "common" is it exactly? What does "multiple" even mean? Two? Two hundred? What does "common" mean? 1% of women? 50%? 100%?

    2) What is a "Full term abortion" exactly, who does it, why do they do it, and exactly how do they do it? What is the actual procedure if a woman shows up in, say, week 30 demanding abortion services?



  • Registered Users Posts: 728 ✭✭✭bertiebomber


    Abortion is for the lazy who cant be arsed to do their regular contrception. I am 100% in favour of good contraception and even free contraception , combined with good information on sexual health . Logic really, teach people. explain in simple terms whats going on what can happen & how to avoid it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 728 ✭✭✭bertiebomber


    I know but the scope of the USA abortion laws are very wide and should be curbed somewhat , no altogether but a late abortion should not be available to easily. That should be a digfferent cause. The regular up to 12 weeks should be freely available in local clinics but not the late ones its too easy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,865 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    So, rapists should use condoms?


    You know it's not 100% effective, this was made eminently clear to you when you were on the old abortion thread. Were you there? You can look it up.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    This rhetoric was tried, and miserably failed, to move the Irish population during our referendum. I am not sure why you feel pushing the same rhetoric here is going to fool anyone now.

    The first glaring nonsense in your post is that contraception is not some magic bullet that always works. Thankfully the failure %s of contraception is small. But unfortunately a small % of a large number is still significant. And many many people have sex very very often. So you have a double fail in your post here in that A) many people seeking abortion actually did use contraception despite your claim to the contrary and b) contraception is not 100% effective.

    The second glaring error in your post is the assumption that all abortions are the result of people not using contraception, or of not wanting a pregnancy. This is not always the case either. It is entirely possible to be trying for a pregnancy and then having become pregnant their circumstances change significantly and their pregnancy is no longer viable for them. They can lose a job, become homeless, lose their spouse/partner, have a life changing medical diagnosis in themselves or someone close, suffer a life trauma, and much much more. Any number of reasons why someone who actually INTENDED to get pregnant.... suddenly finds themselves in crisis.

    It is anti choice campaigners like yourself who try to simplify the vast number of reasons for seeking an abortion down to one or two intentionally disparaging and willfully over simplified narratives like "just people too lazy". The reality outside your narrative, out here in the real world where we are and you are not, is much deeper and more diverse.

    But at least we have common ground here. Both pro and anti choice people generally want to espouse better sexual health education, better contraception, and better incentives to allow pregnant women to proceed with their pregnancies. We share those ideals. What is interesting is that the institutions who have been most vocal against abortion like.... say... the catholic church.... have at times also been vocal AGAINST contraception and sexual education in children. One can wonder why that is and oppose their agendas.



  • Registered Users Posts: 728 ✭✭✭bertiebomber


    You are right i am not in the present day reality, I have since taken two freinds at my expense to the Uk for a crisis termination so i am in all camps. Both my friends had regrets and one suffered depression. I agree with abortion but i hate the images of a 30+ weeks foetus in buckets in clinics, they are upsetting even to me who has a open view. I accept the criticism here which i am frequently exposed to but sometimes having lived a life does give you a different perception than just reading about things & listening to the twitter outrage & roaring..

    Post edited by bertiebomber on


  • Registered Users Posts: 728 ✭✭✭bertiebomber


    I firmly believe the catholic church were against contrception & abortion as it was their recruitment to the church to have as many births as possible in poor families whom they ruled with fear, these children were automatically in their catholic family.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,865 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    I am not sure what images you are talking about to be honest. And I would question if the images are actually what your sources claimed they are too. When people resort to using pictures in lieu of actual arguments.... a lot of dishonesty can happen. And the less articulate and less intellectual of our species will gleefully grab on to any image they thing will further their cause without having to string a sentence together.

    For example for reasons I can not fathom I have seen pro choice people use images of the early stage fetus of OTHER non human animals.

    Similarly I have seen anti choice people use images that were not what was claimed. Over on the "peoples republic of cork" forum for example, during the referendum on abortion, I saw people post images of what they claimed was late term aborted fetus. It turns out they had willfully stolen the image of a still birth which the parents had intentionally released to the media to raise awareness about the medical issue that caused the still birth.

    To say I am disgusted by both sets of people, on both sides, who move to such tactics is an understatement.

    An image of a 30 week old fetus is going to be distressing to most human beings. Regardless of the cause. But if it allays your distress at all... the near totality of cases where we willfully terminate at that late stage are because of medical or other absolute necessity and not because women are suddenly, after 30 weeks of pregnancy.... deciding on a whim to chop their little darlings up into mince meat.

    In fact the statistics on abortion are remarkably consistent. The near totality of ELECTIVE abortions.... where women chose for their own personal reasons to seek a termination.... happen in or before week 12. And this remains consistent across jurisdictions regardless of whether abortion within that jurisdiction is totally banned..... is allowed with a term limit like in the UK or Ireland..... or is relatively restriction free like in Canada. Which somewhat lends strength to people on the pro choice side telling us to "Trust women". I do, and they validate that trust.

    So those that oppose abortion tend to fail to actually prevent them happening. Instead they just increase the stress and duress such women undergo as they travel to other jurisdictions at personal cost, and medical risk, to have them elsewhere.... or they do it themselves with all the risks and horrors that involves.

    So what anti choice campaigners think they are actually achieving with their NIMBYism is still beyond me after nearly 30 years engaged with this topic.

    I feel for your friends (assuming the anecdotes true) who felt regret. One wonders if they felt regret because they think they actually did anything wrong, or because the needless division over this issue has guilted them into thinking they have when in fact I have yet in 30 years to see a single coherent moral or ethical argument against elective abortion in the term limits it predominantly occurs in.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,213 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    It's not just about a lack of any legislation about Healthcare , Can anyone recall a single piece of GOP legislation in the last 25 years that wasn't a tax cut , increased Military spending or a roll-back of legislation designed to protect employees or the environment?

    I challenge anyone to name a single piece of legislation put forward by the GOP in that timeframe with the express purpose of directly benefiting the average person. "Tax cuts for rich" framed as some trickle-down nonsense doesn't count..



  • Registered Users Posts: 728 ✭✭✭bertiebomber


    the friends were regretful due to years of catholic conditioning making them feel as if they had sinned, due to strong catholic mothers who welcomed the priests & their rules unlike my own. Thank you for the break down and calm description & explanation i take your comment on board.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,365 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    Except once Republicans get the nationwide abortion ban they want the next thing on the agenda is overturning Griswold vs Connecticut and bringing in a nationwide ban on contraception. The Republicans have already been very vocal on that..

    We in Ireland know very well how the Christian social conservatives think and what they ultimately want. We lived through it long enough. They won't stop at abortion and contraception either!!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,066 ✭✭✭Christy42


    In that case Roe should be defended. States with laws like NY which you disagree with will keep them but states that don't have them will just get far, far more hardline with some at this point even discussing laws against contraceptive measures off of the back of this. Essentially no later term abortions will be stopped but those just doing the minimum from Roe vs Wade will go pretty heavily against your desire for early term abortions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,182 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Many folks on the right have been overcome with the Upsets because the public is openly harassing people for their decisions surrounding abortion

    It was shameful that the White House refused to condemn violent protest ors threatening the families of the supreme court. It is disgraceful! And Joe Biden used to be chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Joe Biden knows it’s disgraceful! He’s literally threatening the lives of these justices by the mob they’re unleashing. It’s the same thing we saw with Black Lives Matter and Antifa riots where the left embraced them, and now they’re embracing mob violence to get their partisan outcome.

    Silly Ted. The President clearly said there were many fine people on both sides of the People vs SCOTUS protest. Can someone also fetch him the Merriam-Webster listing for Literally?

    (Biden's actual statement: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61382289)

    In turn many other people are calling them up on the double standards.

    And then other Justices are saying you have no right to stand and freely protest — peacefully protest outside of our homes. 'We have a right to privacy.'


    Well, women have a right to privacy as well, and women have a right to privacy with their bodies, and I’m just shocked that that’s what we’re hearing from men. That’s what we’re hearing from the justices. That’s what we’re hearing from, you know, Republicans, that people don’t have a right to protest these – this draft opinion when the Supreme Court has found that you have a right to protest in front of abortion clinics*, that there can be no buffer zone.

    *https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1168_6k47.pdf

    You have a right to storm the capitol, but not to protest the Supreme Court. Got it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,865 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    I thought the protestors were on a tour to view the SCOTUS judges' homes? We should ask Christine Blassey Forde about protestors, she has a lot of experience with them and the support she got from the POTUS at the time to ensure her safety.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,741 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    It might surprise you that most healthcare services in America are profit driven



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Pussyhands


    Shameful carry on from the left. Setting fire to anti abortion groups properties. Intimidating judges.

    The same crowd were complaining about attacks to democracy last year so what do you call this??? Following judges to their homes.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,182 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Shameful carry on to vandalize and arson yes. Nobody knows who actually did that yet though, and it looks suspect.

    If they trespassed on the homes of Justices they went too far. I saw footage from the street, not their homes though.

    The SCOTUS has, after all, defended the right of protest in public, and firmly iterated that in public one has no expectation of privacy.

    .... “Occupy Biden” Climate Activists Protest At Biden’s House In Wilmington, DE1,944 viewsStreamed live on Jan 1, 2022:


    Maybe I missed the broad condemnation when this occurred.




  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,606 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    As usual, the right has no idea what democracy is. These are unelected figures who can remove human rights at will. It's something I'd expect in the Republican party's dream fascist dystopia.

    It's ok though. The treacherous, deceitful snakes can just relocate.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 405 ✭✭Dingaan



    The elected congress and senate could pass an abortion law that could make abortion legal. That's actually how democracy should work.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,182 ✭✭✭✭Overheal




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 405 ✭✭Dingaan


    A 14th amendment that is very ambiguous.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,519 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    I was under the impression that breaking the windows and robbing the furniture was legitimate political discourse.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,182 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    No there are laws against that.


    It also turns out there are laws against Protesting at a judges home, too. 18 U.S. Code § 1507 is hard to dispute with here:

    Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

    Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.

    (Added Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 31(a), 64 Stat. 1018; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,066 ✭✭✭Christy42


    There is also a yearly march to the the supreme Court to get them to overturn Roe vs Wade which would seem to break the same law.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,182 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    That, very specifically, was protected by the SCOTUS in the 1983 Case, United States v. Grace

    I wonder if the SCOTUS would hear a case involving protestors arrested protesting their high court corruption though, at their homes. That would be unlikely but interesting, for the sake of irony. 18 U.S. Code § 1507 in general is a Time Manner and Place exclusion to the first amendment though, and I think it would be hard to argue it's a right to shout into their window while they're asleep to get your argument across which will keep until waking hours.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,066 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Why would it be hard to argue? They are perfectly happy and have allowed protests next to planned parenthood to hassle anyone walking in which is a supreme court judgement. They have provided the above exception to this law. This protest seems to have been started by the neighbours themselves. Protesting outside of politician's homes is pretty well established at this stage.


    The entire point of said law is stop people from coercing a judgement they want from a judges place of work/home and have provided an exception for a case which pretty explicitly wants to coerce the judgement they want already. Given it doesn't protect anyone else's home so it isn't a right to privacy for Kavanagh or anything I fail to see why the home should provide any extra protection to the office in the specific case of this law.


    I dislike protesting outside homes in general but there is no specific law to stop that happening outside of judges.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,182 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Why would it be hard to argue? They are perfectly happy and have allowed protests next to planned parenthood to hassle anyone walking in which is a supreme court judgement. 

    A Planned Parenthood clinic is not representative of the 3rd branch of government. The law is about Jurors, Attorneys, Judges, Courthouses, and trying to insulate the institution of justice from undue influence. It's hard for me to sympathize with Brett Kavanaugh, Boofs is a disgrace, but, if this same protest was happening outside of 12 jurors homes, I think that would be an issue regardless of the case. But I get that these are not jurors, these are Justices.

    The law, as written, does protect judges in their residence from public protest. Would it stand up I don't know. Will it get challenged now maybe but I doubt it personally. One could argue that Justices are Judges of a far more significant stature and that the balance of the constitution would demand they be exposed to the voice of the people. Whether Police will even enforce that law, however, remains to be seen. I don't know if the protests are even continuing and I saw no report of any arrests.

    This protest seems to have been started by the neighbours themselves. 

    You weren't lying

    Harder case to make against the neighbor so.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,654 ✭✭✭✭extra gravy


    Didn't the court previously hold that protesting outside of the homes of abortion clinic employees is protected by the first amendment? Shoe's on the other foot now and they're crying about it. Fück him, he can always move like Christine Blasey has had to do.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,182 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    They did, and they set 2 different standards between the clinics and the courts. The law on paper backs them up on that; essentially a woman should be harassed and coerced and manipulated and shouted at when she makes a very important decision, it should require multiple visits and appeals, and clinicians should be legally compelled to even say things to the patient which are complete bullshit. But the Supreme Court cannot be dare influenced by the plebs they change the lives of (100s of Millions of living Americans) depending, sometimes, on whether they look at an argument from one hand or the other. Lady Justice is Blind they insist...




  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    His statement isn’t wrong.

    Neither is the observation in the article that a number of Republicans are against the concept of a National ban.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,603 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    But it was the same unelected judges that granted the right in the first place.

    This is the main problem with judicial activism, it's pretty much using any means possible to win. The right way to have done this would have been for legislatures to legislate for access to such services - as was done here.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,606 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    This isn't the same thing at all. In the first instance, they interpreted the constitution and established a precedent. In a functioning democracy, the government would have legislated to incorporated this precedent into law. This didn't happen and now, the judges have decided for political reasons to undo precedent.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,617 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    The X Case judgement wasn't implemented here for over 20 years.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,606 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,617 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Well I won't go into it. But you're on your high horse talking about functioning democracies, when clearly our recent history (and problems still exist) with abortion is completely disastrous.

    I would think Irish people would have some awareness not to enter the American abortion debate.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,606 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    I'd like you to go into it. With sources please.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,211 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    Because our elected representatives didn’t want to touch it with a forty foot barge pole, same reason elected representatives didn’t want to touch the issue with a forty foot barge pole in the US -

    To coincide with the February anniversary of the case, left-wing TDs in the Dail parliament, Clare Daly, Joan Collins and Mick Wallace, put forward a Private Members' Bill to finally legislate on the X Case.

    It was rejected by 109 votes to 20, with Labour TDs among those to vote against it despite the party's pro-choice stance.

    https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/debate-rages-on-20-years-after-the-x-case-resolved-nothing-28901347.html



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,865 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    The elected Democratic representatives in the Congress all want to talk about this leaked decision. They're campaigning on it. They're passing laws about it. Now, the Republicans in the US Senate, especially, don't want to talk about this because of the reasons you give: fear of backlash.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,606 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    That article is from 2012. The eighth amendment was still in place. It couldn't be brought into law with that abomination in place.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,211 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    Well, not to be a picky fcuker, but it’s only some Democrats who want to talk about this leaked decision. Republicans are talking about it too, but naturally - not from the same perspective as Democrats who want to talk about it.

    Overheal made the same point as you’re making about Republicans being afraid of a backlash, but I just don’t see any evidence to support that argument when Republicans already had trigger laws in place, ready to go, were they ever successful in having Roe v Wade overturned. In the meantime they’ll continue to try and legislate for more restrictive laws regarding abortion in their respective States.

    On that basis, fears of a backlash? What backlash?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,603 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    They did interpret the constitution that way but that was not the only interpretation available to them. The ruling was not unanimous. Many consider it to be an example of judicial activism.

    The right way to go about it would have been to legislate for that right.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,606 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    I don't think so. You either have laws or you have this nonsense.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,211 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    The article could easily be from 1992, 2012 or 2022 even if the 8th amendment had remained in place, because the 8th amendment wasn’t the issue. The issue was the lack of explicit legislation on the issue of abortion.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,606 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    We're beginning to get a bit off topic. I'm not sure there'd be a point since it seems such legislation could easily be ruled as unconstitutional.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,865 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Ballot box backlash. Just because laws are ready to go, doesn't mean (a) they will go (b) they'll go without being noticed. There's already backlash - people are protesting outside the SCOTUS and at various judges' homes. So you agree, politicians are talking about it. Good. And yeah, they have triggers ready to go once Roe is repealed.


    Like a wise person once said, "Be careful what you wish for." I can see it getting pretty ugly in the US, reminiscent of the Viet Nam war protests.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,211 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    I don’t think we’re off topic, sure the whole reason for the introduction of the 8th amendment in the first place was because some people didn’t want a repeat of the Roe v Wade decision in Ireland. The wording of the amendment was criticised at the time because it was argued that it would permit abortion in Ireland - the opposite of it’s intended effect.

    The referendum on the right to travel came about as a result of the X case, and then there was the A, B and C case v Ireland which would be similar to the the Roe v Wade case on the basis that the Court rejected a right to abortion, but had violated the womens right to privacy -


    A, B and C v Ireland is a landmark 2010 case of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to privacy under Article 8. The court rejected the argument that article 8 conferred a right to abortion, but found that Ireland had violated the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to provide an accessible and effective procedure by which a woman can have established whether she qualifies for a legal abortion under current Irish law.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A,_B_and_C_v_Ireland

    Which led to the ham-fisted effort we have in legislation today under which the woman who captured the attention of the public would still not have qualified for a termination of her pregnancy as she was 17 weeks pregnant at the time and there was no requirement to terminate her pregnancy on the basis of the legislation as it is currently written.

    Having gotten rid of the 8th amendment didn’t and still hasn’t changed anything in practical terms. It simply means more cases are likely to come before the Courts than before is all.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,617 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Sources for what?

    Are you over a certain age, can you not remember.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement