Rogue pregnancy agencys.

Nevyn

Taken from Breakingnews.ie

Well Woman Centre calls for end to ‘rogue’ pregnancy counselling
18/07/2006 - 13:53:35

The Well Woman Centre has called on Minister for Health Mary Harney to take immediate action to prevent what the organisation has called ‘rogue pregnancy counselling services’ from operating in the State.

“This morning’s broadcast by Newstalk 106 of recordings made by their reporter provides hard evidence to demonstrate the appalling tactics employed by a Dublin-based rogue pregnancy counselling service,” said Well Woman’s chief executive, Alison Begas.

“From Well Woman’s experience, we know that these tactics are used by other rogue agencies around the country.

“The reaction of the Minister for Health, Mary Harney, following the broadcast, is worrying, and indicates that she does not intend to take any immediate action at Government-level to regulate pregnancy counselling services.

“Instead, she suggested that the Crisis Pregnancy Agency was the vehicle for dealing with these rogue operations.

“The Crisis Pregnancy Agency has done an excellent job in consolidating information about pregnancy services, and in funding the expansion of these services, but rogue agencies continue to operate in a vacuum, without any regulation or accountability.

“Regulation of pregnancy counselling services can only be progressed at Government level, and Well Woman would urge the Minister for Health to revisit her position and take a lead on this issue.”

Well Woman provides a non-directive pregnancy counselling service which is funded by the Crisis Pregnancy Agency, and which operates under the Information Act (1995).

Last week, in publishing its annual report, Well Woman highlighted that it continued to see a steady stream of women attending its pregnancy counselling service who had previously attended a 'rogue' service.

“We respect the fact that abortion is an emotive issue, and people will have strong views on it,” said Begas. “At the same time, it is not acceptable that a woman who seeks information about abortion – as is her constitutional right – should be subjected to scare tactics by rogue services.

“Most women who find themselves in a crisis pregnancy situation are anxious and shocked, and need a confidential and non-judgemental environment in which they can consider the best option for themselves.

“From today’s excellent undercover report by Newstalk, it is clear that rogue agencies play upon women’s anxiety and very often plunge them into a state of trauma.”

Here's the undercover interview! :
# Abortion: My Journey
To hear Newstalk 106’s reporter Aisling O’Riordan’s undercover report on Abortion advice centres
http://www.newstalk.ie/podcasts/library/Abortion/part1.mp3

Listen to the mp3.

Really I had tought that this type of thing has stopped.
I am fuming and furious.
I knew this type ;f thing happened 10 years ago while I was WRO in college as CURA tried to recruit me and got very very nasty when I would not side with them, but the fact that they can operate like this is appaling.

Really an ounce of prevention is better then a pound of cure when will we have a proper fact based sex and sexual health and contraceptive education program in our secondary schools ?

flogen

Thanks for that link Thaed; I read about this in a blog today and was raging that I missed it... I'm about 3 minutes in and am already shocked.

Schuhart

Thaedydal wrote:

I knew this type ;f thing happened 10 years ago while I was WRO in college as CURA tried to recruit me and got very very nasty when I would not side with them, but the fact that they can operate like this is appaling.

Sorry, just to clarify. CURA seem to be both represented on the board of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency and to received funding from them, so presumbly they are not classed among the 'rogue' agencies. The press statement by the Well Woman Centre seems to regard the CPA as excellent in achieving consolidation of services.

I haven't listened to the mp3 as I don't have the werewithal here, but I've read coverage of the issue and from what I can gather what is at issue is some kind of 'front' agencies being set up by anti-abortion campaigners. I'd expect that CURA would feel a need to adhere to Roman Catholic ethics, but that is presumably their business and different in nature to these 'rogue' agencies. In other words, has your personal experience of being 'recruited' any relevance to the matter in hand?

flogen

Schuhart wrote:

Sorry, just to clarify. CURA seem to be both represented on the board of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency and to received funding from them, so presumbly they are not classed among the 'rogue' agencies. The press statement by the Well Woman Centre seems to regard the CPA as excellent in achieving consolidation of services.

I haven't listened to the mp3 as I don't have the werewithal here, but I've read coverage of the issue and from what I can gather what is at issue is some kind of 'front' agencies being set up by anti-abortion campaigners. I'd expect that CURA would feel a need to adhere to Roman Catholic ethics, but that is presumably their business and different in nature to these 'rogue' agencies. In other words, has your personal experience of being 'recruited' any relevance to the matter in hand?

I think the OP made it clear that the event happened many years ago; there's no suggestion that CURA are still doing the same thing now but instead that it is still happening somewhere.
Please steer clear of throwing accusations at people/bodies unless it can be backed up somehow.

Schuhart

flogen wrote:

I think the OP made it clear that the event happened many years ago; there's no suggestion that CURA are still doing the same thing now but instead that it is still happening somewhere.
Please steer clear of throwing accusations at people/bodies unless it can be backed up somehow.

I might be going completely hatstand, but I'm having trouble figuring out this post too. Clearly I'm not making any accusations about anyone. But then perhaps this comment is not directed at me, as I am simply pointing out an apparent inconsistency in the opening post.

I still puzzled at the relevance of the OPs reference to CURA, which when you look at the line

I knew this type ;f thing happened 10 years ago while I was WRO in college as CURA tried to recruit me and got very very nasty when I would not side with them, but the fact that they can operate like this is appaling.

most certainly is open to misinterpretation that this experience has some current relevance. I don't think it does, and, on reflection and in time, the OP will probably clarify this.

flogen

Schuhart wrote:

I might be going completely hatstand, but I'm having trouble figuring out this post too. Clearly I'm not making any accusations about anyone. But then perhaps this comment is not directed at me, as I am simply pointing out an apparent inconsistency in the opening post.

It wasn't specifically directed at you, no. It was directed at anyone posting here.

I still puzzled at the relevance of the OPs reference to CURA, which when you look at the linemost certainly is open to misinterpretation that this experience has some current relevance. I don't think it does, and, on reflection and in time, the OP will probably clarify this.

Most things are open to misinterpretation but you cannot always blame the person who said them for the mistake, in this case I don't believe that the OP is claiming that CURA's tactics today are the same as those featured in the linked MP3, although she may well be; either way the post she has made so far does not, in my opinion imply any current wrongdoing by the group.

Let that be the end of it; back on topic please.

Nevyn

By they I ment groups that scaremonger with these tatics and hide what thier agenda is. CURA are upfront about thier position and policies on this matter .

Schuhart

The link was interesting, and worth posting up. It did take me back to the days of the original Pro Life Amendment, filled with farce. It all culminated in the X case, the first time that the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution could be ignored when it obviously gave the wrong answer – the recent A case being the second example.

On the State side, it is easy to see why they are staying a mile from this. For better or worse, abortion is illegal here. Clearly, if we were talking about the actual supply of a medical service it would be possible to shut out quacks. But if we try to say it’s illegal for people to tell fairy tales, then we’d not only have to run the rogue agencies out of town but also consider closing down a few thousand places of public worship. I bags burning down the Scientology psychological testing centre.

Is better sex education the answer? I’d say yes and no. I think better education is the answer. The essential message from the OECD studies is we currently produce people who have a certain comprehension of language, but who can’t really think. If we produced people with half a clue then, yes, I would expect there would be less crisis pregnancies and less people vulnerable to this kind of bollocks. (I’d also expect religions and Fianna Fail to suffer quite a bit.)

We have to bear in mind that the vast bulk of Irish women who present for abortion are in their twenties or older . For people of that age, it simply is not credible to think the unwanted pregnancy has its roots in ignorance of the facts of fertility and how to control it. They end up with unwanted pregnancies for the same reason we’re building unneeded motorways. Because we’re a nation of gob****es. So education, yes. Sex education? I don’t have a hang up about it, but it’s hardly the source of the problem.

I think there is one footnote is to consider as well. Clearly showing picture and videos of abortions to women in the middle of a crisis pregnancy is pure fanaticism, and amounts to unjustifiable pressure on a person at a vulnerable time. However, at calmer moments, anti abortion campaigners would be perfectly right to remind us that euphemisms like ‘right to choose’ cloak an ugly reality. It’s good for the soul to recognise when you’ve just said you had to destroy the village in order to save it.

flogen

Schuhart wrote:

The link was interesting, and worth posting up. It did take me back to the days of the original Pro Life Amendment, filled with farce. It all culminated in the X case, the first time that the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution could be ignored when it obviously gave the wrong answer – the recent A case being the second example.

Sorry? The Supreme Court is there to uphold the constitution and ensure that all law is constitutional; it strikes down legislation, not constitutional articles... Referenda often follow in an attempt to make the (struck down) legislation constitutionall valid again.

On the State side, it is easy to see why they are staying a mile from this. For better or worse, abortion is illegal here. Clearly, if we were talking about the actual supply of a medical service it would be possible to shut out quacks. But if we try to say it’s illegal for people to tell fairy tales, then we’d not only have to run the rogue agencies out of town but also consider closing down a few thousand places of public worship. I bags burning down the Scientology psychological testing centre.

I think the solution would be to have better training for these people and some kind of monitoring system; if a Newstalk reporter can go undercover why can't a Governmental agent too?
I'm sure there's a way they can force those posing as sources of information to either give the information or shut up shop.
And you cannot really compare this to Scientology; that is a manipulator of sorts too but one that is probably more financially dangerous than it is mentally/physically dangerous.
That's a completely different topic, however and not one for this forum

Is better sex education the answer? I’d say yes and no. I think better education is the answer. The essential message from the OECD studies is we currently produce people who have a certain comprehension of language, but who can’t really think. If we produced people with half a clue then, yes, I would expect there would be less crisis pregnancies and less people vulnerable to this kind of bollocks. (I’d also expect religions and Fianna Fail to suffer quite a bit.)

We have to bear in mind that the vast bulk of Irish women who present for abortion are in their twenties or older . For people of that age, it simply is not credible to think the unwanted pregnancy has its roots in ignorance of the facts of fertility and how to control it. They end up with unwanted pregnancies for the same reason we’re building unneeded motorways. Because we’re a nation of gob****es. So education, yes. Sex education? I don’t have a hang up about it, but it’s hardly the source of the problem.

This thread is not here to discuss the reasons why women get pregnant when they don't want to, we're here to discuss the potential for miseducation and bully-tactics they face when they look for help and information.

I think there is one footnote is to consider as well. Clearly showing picture and videos of abortions to women in the middle of a crisis pregnancy is pure fanaticism, and amounts to unjustifiable pressure on a person at a vulnerable time. However, at calmer moments, anti abortion campaigners would be perfectly right to remind us that euphemisms like ‘right to choose’ cloak an ugly reality. It’s good for the soul to recognise when you’ve just said you had to destroy the village in order to save it.

That is also not a matter for this discussion here, please take it to Humanities.

Schuhart

I can understand that you really don’t want this thread on your forum. Fine, its your shop. I’m not even going to crib about why a response to the OP’s point about sex education being the answer to crisis pregnancy is suddenly not in the scope of the thread. I’ll just concentrate on the one item that you don’t seem to regard as offside.

Yes, the decision in the A case is an example of the Supreme Court ignoring the law and making a common sense decision such as you or I might have made. You will get a flavour of how the decision is viewed in on this thread on the legal discussion board. Your apparent consternation that, sometimes, the courts might act like this is misplaced. Judges are people like the rest of us, and their decisions don’t come down on tablets of stone.

flogen

Schuhart wrote:

I can understand that you really don’t want this thread on your forum. Fine, its your shop. I’m not even going to crib about why a response to the OP’s point about sex education being the answer to crisis pregnancy is suddenly not in the scope of the thread. I’ll just concentrate on the one item that you don’t seem to regard as offside.

It's not my shop, I'm just a till-boy.
The OP made a retorical question and if you feel you can answer it it can be better served in other fora.

Yes, the decision in the A case is an example of the Supreme Court ignoring the law and making a common sense decision such as you or I might have made. You will get a flavour of how the decision is viewed in on this thread on the legal discussion board. Your apparent consternation that, sometimes, the courts might act like this is misplaced. Judges are people like the rest of us, and their decisions don’t come down on tablets of stone.

I don't see how the Supreme Court ignored the constitution, however; they simply decided that to apply legislature amendments retrospectively would bring the country to its knees; the constitution, like most legal documentation is subject to context; the climate in which the law was written was different to what is around today and had those being charged felt agrieved by the modern application of the law they had every freedom to challenge it as CC did; their decision not to do so meant that they waived their constitutional right on that matter.

Schuhart

flogen wrote:

The OP made a retorical question and if you feel you can answer it it can be better served in other fora.

Its not so much a question of feeling I can answer it, and more a question of I’ve said how I feel. I've no need to take it further on another forum, unless someone else wants to.

flogen wrote:

their decision not to do so meant that they waived their constitutional right on that matter.

I can’t put it better that this poster on the legal board

Think it doesn't matter how you dress it up, in the end of the day someone is in jail having been convicted for a crime that does not exist. One assumes this 'robust' decision will be of limited precendtal value given its own special facts and perhaps we can move on with the pretence that we have a legal system that adheres to some sort of fundamental principle.

Its one thing to say that retrospective effect can’t invalidate every election since the passage of the constitution because some fault is discovered in electoral law. It is quite another to decide that someone should be in jail today for a crime that has ceased to be.

Pragmatically, I have no particular problem with the Supreme Court decision. But it throws the idea of even application of the law out the window. They’ve simply decided if you mess with children the normal rules don’t apply. In this instance, they have no more legal validity to their position than a vigilante.

flogen

Schuhart wrote:

Its one thing to say that retrospective effect can’t invalidate every election since the passage of the constitution because some fault is discovered in electoral law. It is quite another to decide that someone should be in jail today for a crime that has ceased to be.

Firstly the entire law was not struck down, only a portion of it, secondly the law that they were convicted under is the law that matters; laws are amended all the time so if one law is replaced with another and so the old law ceases to exist should these people also have grounds for appeal?

Pragmatically, I have no particular problem with the Supreme Court decision. But it throws the idea of even application of the law out the window. They’ve simply decided if you mess with children the normal rules don’t apply. In this instance, they have no more legal validity to their position than a vigilante.

The decision sets a legal precident for these instances in the future; the same rule will apply to all laws, child-related or otherwise.
The Courts cannot consider the constitutionality of a piece of legislation unless someone puts it to them in a challenge; every person currently imprisoned under statutory rape legislation had the right to challenge the constitutionality of the law and failed to do so, Mr. A pleaded guilty and so any legal change wouldn't have assisted his case and given the circumstances (he knew the family and the age gap was around 30 years) there was no case for an age-based mistake.
Even if Mr. A was tried again today he would be sent to prison but that is another matter; the fact is he pleaded guilty and also waived his right to appeal his conviction to the Supreme Court on the basis of uncostitutional legislation, in doing so he accepted that his case was not constitutionally unfair and was not an infringement on his rights; CC on the other hand felt and proved that it was for him.

Schuhart

flogen wrote:

Firstly the entire law was not struck down, only a portion of it, secondly the law that they were convicted under is the law that matters; laws are amended all the time so if one law is replaced with another and so the old law ceases to exist should these people also have grounds for appeal?

This phrase does not capture the situation, and your reference to laws being amended by the Oireachtas in the normal course of events is a pure irrelevance.

A is in jail because he was found guilty of an offence under section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1935. Section 1(1) has been found unconstitutional. Therefore the piece of legislation relevant to this person’s detention no longer exists. The fact that parts of the law irrelevant to his detention remain in force has no real bearing on the matter.

Consider the bottom line. If you walk up to A’s cell and say ‘why is this man in prison’, you will be told section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1935. If you say ‘but that section is unconstitutional, why is he still here’, the answer is ‘errr’. The Supreme Court decided A should serve his sentence because you can’t let child abusers off. You and I could have reached the same conclusion, having chucked the constitution in the bin.

flogen wrote:

the fact is he pleaded guilty and also waived his right to appeal his conviction to the Supreme Court on the basis of uncostitutional legislation, in doing so he accepted that his case was not constitutionally unfair and was not an infringement on his rights; CC on the other hand felt and proved that it was for him.

The arguments used by the Courts in deciding to keep A in jail don’t really add up. The key point to get into your mind is that there is a man in jail today for an offence that has not existed for some weeks now. The equivalent position in, say, the Murphy tax case cited by one judge as precedent would be if the State continued to deduct tax from people who willingly paid it in the belief it was the law of the land, even after the basis of that tax was found unconstitutional.

You don’t need to take this from me. At the risk of seemingly cheeky, and recognising that its your till, this might not be the best forum to discuss this. If you post up your understanding of the situation on the legal discussion board you’ll find several people with an interest and knowledge of such matters able to point out the flaws in this determination better than I can.

flogen

Very well; if you wish to end the discussion that's your entitlement entirely.

The fact that you've missed my point in the process is not something that seems to concern you nor does it concern me; so we shall get back strictly on topic I suppose.

Schuhart

flogen wrote:

Very well; if you wish to end the discussion that's your entitlement entirely.

Rest assured, I’m happy to continue this discussion for as long as it takes for you to understand where you are going wrong. I’m only suggesting if you really can’t make sense of what I’m saying , there is another option where you can get views from people you might be more open to listening to.

flogen wrote:

The fact that you've missed my point in the process is not something that seems to concern you nor does it concern me; so we shall get back strictly on topic I suppose.

I have, of course, understood your point. As is clear from my post above, you don’t seem to appreciate the nature of the beast. Manipulating language is no replacement for digesting the features of the matter.

flogen

You have written off one of my points as "pure irrelevance" without actually explaining how and you have failed to respond to the fact that this person was given the opportunity to question the law he was prosecuted under just like everyone else.

Now the fact that you are willing to argue this out until I, in your opinion, get it right means that you are not here for a discussion.

As you point out this thread has gone way off topic already; we're discussing rogue pregnancy advice agencies and nothing else.
Do not respond to this post, if you wish to respond on this thread it must be in relation to the topic at hand, if you wish to continue your existing line you can do so elsewhere and if you want to make any kind of complaint you can take it to Feedback or PM me.
End of the matter.