Confused about these new abortion laws?

rox5

I always thought that abortion was illegal in Ireland except if mother's life was in danger or if she was suicidal from rape or mental illness. So when Savita died and their were looking into abortion laws again, I thought they were making it legal altogether. But it's still more or less the same laws as before? Can someone explain it to me, as I am a bit confused about all this.

Agent Smith

rox5 wrote: »

I always thought that abortion was illegal in Ireland except if mother's life was in danger or if she was suicidal from rape or mental illness. So when Savita died and their were looking into abortion laws again, I thought they were making it legal altogether. But it's still more or less the same laws as before? Can someone explain it to me, as I am a bit confused about all this.

It was never legislated for, Despite being approved by the people. X case Legislation would allow for abortion in the following cases

1. the Pregnancy could kill the mother if brought to full Term.
2. The Risk of suicide of the mother if she is Pregnant.

Morag

rox5 wrote: »

I always thought that abortion was illegal in Ireland except if mother's life was in danger or if she was suicidal from rape or mental illness. So when Savita died and their were looking into abortion laws again, I thought they were making it legal altogether. But it's still more or less the same laws as before? Can someone explain it to me, as I am a bit confused about all this.

The legislation they are bringing in is to cover for the supreme court ruling from 21 years ago and only in relation to abortion when a woman is suicidal.

It will not cover risk to health of women like Savita or Fatal fetal abnormality or rape.

They are not making it legal 'all together' as in giving women Choice.

Infact the new legislation states that anyone who preforms an abortion on themselves or on someone else or who helps which is legally sanctioned in the immediate risk to a woman' life can face a fine and up to 14 years in jail.

The new legislation defines the unborn as an implanted embryo so once a woman is pregnant with an implanted embryo it's right to life superceeds her choice to be pregnant and her right to health.

For the risk to a woman's health, cases of Fatal fetal abnormality, rape, incest or a woman's choice to continue the pregnancy, we need to have a referendum and change our constitution.

Currently the only reason the government are legislating after 21 years of ignoring the X Case is that they are being watched by the EU court of human rights, who told them they have to clarify the extremely limited circumstances in which a woman can have a legal abortion here in Ireland.

This legislation won't change the legal status of abortion in this country.

Bizarrely enough it may well change the legal status of suicide as a woman who is pregnant and tried to kills herself and fails but looses the pregnancy as a result can be charged with having an illegal abortion and face up to 14 years in jail.

Faith

rox5 wrote: »

I always thought that abortion was illegal in Ireland except if mother's life was in danger or if she was suicidal from rape or mental illness. So when Savita died and their were looking into abortion laws again, I thought they were making it legal altogether. But it's still more or less the same laws as before? Can someone explain it to me, as I am a bit confused about all this.

After the X case 21 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion should be legal in those circumstances, except no government since then actually passed that ruling into law. Successive governments just ignored it, like playing an elaborate game of Pass the Parcel.

Then when Savita died, it caught international attention, as well as incentivising huge numbers of Irish citizens to say "Enough is enough, it's time to enforce the Supreme Court ruling at the very least". The current government got put under enough pressure and scrutiny to have to act, so they've drafted the most limited, restrictive, unrealistic legislation that they could possibly come up with just to say that they've acted. To put it in context, Savita would more than likely still have died if the current legislation had been in place in October.

Basically, the court ordered the government to make legislation for abortion in cases of suicide or risk to the mother's life 21 years ago, and each government just ignored it until they had no choice.

MaxWig

Morag wrote: »

Bizarrely enough it may well change the legal status of suicide as a woman who is pregnant and tried to kills herself and fails but looses the pregnancy as a result can be charged with having an illegal abortion and face up to 14 years in jail.

Do you have something to back this up with?

Sounds very dubious to me.

If you are right, its despicable!
But sounds entirely wrong.

eviltwin

MaxWig wrote: »

Do you have something to back this up with?



Sounds very dubious to me.



If you are right, its despicable!

But sounds entirely wrong.

It's been widely reported. If you look at any article which printed the final heads of the bill its clearly there.

misslt

What I am confused about is the almighty fuss that has been created over it if that's all the legislation allows for. I was under the impression that it would cover any risk to the life of the mother, etc etc.

I've deliberately not followed the stories because they make me angry and sad and slightly incredulous that its 2013, not 1953!!

I don't even know how to express my frustration, disappointment etc with this country! I love it, but I'm glad I'm leaving it

B0jangles

MaxWig wrote: »

Do you have something to back this up with?

Sounds very dubious to me.

If you are right, its despicable!
But sounds entirely wrong.

See section 22

http://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/protection-life-pregnancy.pdf

It's very unspecific and therefore open to all kinds of interpretations.

rainbow kirby

misslt wrote: »

I don't even know how to express my frustration, disappointment etc with this country! I love it, but I'm glad I'm leaving it

Could say exactly the same thing. I want to believe that real change will happen, but it's very hard to see where it's going to come from - and whether it will happen soon enough to be a factor if something went wrong if/when I decide to have my own children!

It just seems that there are too many people (and organisations) who want to dig their heels in and stop any real progress from taking place in this country as regards issues that predominantly affect women.

Frito

MaxWig wrote: »

Do you have something to back this up with?

Sounds very dubious to me.

If you are right, its despicable!
But sounds entirely wrong.

I wonder if Morag's thinking of Bei Bei Shuai, a Chinese immigrant in Indiana. She was 33 weeks pregnant when she ingested rat poison in a suicide attempt following the break-up of her relationship. She was taken to hospital by friends, her baby was born by caesarian section and died within a few days. She was charged with attempted foeticide and murder. I think she is awaiting trial, but not sure.

Morag

Frito wrote: »

I wonder if Morag's thinking of Bei Bei Shuai, a Chinese immigrant in Indiana. She was 33 weeks pregnant when she ingested rat poison in a suicide attempt following the break-up of her relationship. She was taken to hospital by friends, her baby was born by caesarian section and died within a few days. She was charged with attempted foeticide and murder. I think she is awaiting trial, but not sure.

I think it's very tragic and that she felt she had no one to turn to.
It is women like that we should be trying to help with the legislation and clarity from the X Case ruling.

clairefontaine

Morag wrote: »

I think it's very tragic and that she felt she had no one to turn to.
It is women like that we should be trying to help with the legislation and clarity from the X Case ruling.

She was 33 weeks along. So the status of the foetus changes.

Worztron

Is rape and incest covered?

Obliq

Worztron wrote: »

Is rape and incest covered?

Nope.

Tigger99

No.

Out of curiosity why are u only asking about rape and incest?

Are women that go through a horrific ordeal more deserving of an abortion?

Obliq

Tigger99 wrote: »

No.

Out of curiosity why are u only asking about rape and incest?

Are women that go through a horrific ordeal more deserving of an abortion?

That's a different assumption to the one I made. In my assumption, he had been locked in a cave with no internet/tv. (sorry worztron )

Worztron

Tigger99 wrote: »

No.

Out of curiosity why are u only asking about rape and incest?

Are women that go through a horrific ordeal more deserving of an abortion?

So you expect women to bear the offspring of rapists?

coffee_cake

Either it's a life to be saved or it isn't - as much as I disagree with prolifers, they'd be hypocrites pure and simple to make a rape exception

Obliq

Worztron wrote: »

So you expect women to bear the offspring of rapists?

That's a weird assumption too. What is this? After hours?

Tigger99

Worztron wrote: »

So you expect women to bear the offspring of rapists?

I don't expect any woman to bear a child, any child, that she doesn't want to have.

Good way of trying to dodge my question tho.

prodigal_son

Basically the government want abortion on the books. Ireland is one of the safest places in the world to have a baby because every single effort is made to save the child and mother.

As it stands a child will be aborted if the mothers life is at risk 100% of the time. The problem is that this woman was admitted with foetal distress. She had a high survival chance, but of course there was a risk to her life.

She wanted an abortion because she felt that the risk wasn't worth it, the doctors felt her life wasn't in risk, that they would wait and see. Her life became at risk when the child had already died.

So what the government wants is the ability to abort over a future risk to your life that is not present yet. So you will have 99% survival rate risk but be able to get an abortion because your life is at 1% risk. This is where the doctors will not abort now.

I think the system is fine, and that standards will go down as ireland deals with less and less complicated pregnancies and offers abortion to tricky pregnancies.

I think if you don't want to accept a slight risk to have a child, then you should go to another country to have it, and not bring in abortion here.

Worztron

Tigger99 wrote: »

No.

Out of curiosity why are u only asking about rape and incest?

Are women that go through a horrific ordeal more deserving of an abortion?

I asked because they were not mentioned in the news.

Forcing a women to bear the child of a rapist would be far worse than having an abortion.

Tigger99

Prodigal son your post appears to be a lot of guesswork. Do you have evidence for the random figures you are quoting. By the way tell Savita's family that abortions will take place when they are at risk.

lazygal

Ireland is average as a place to have a baby. We're no worse, but not miles better, than most other first world countries, most of which have fairly liberal abortion regimes. Our 'difficult' cases, like fatal abnormalities and complex defects, tend to be exported.
Going on anecdotes, no woman I know, myself included, would say we had a world class, totally safe maternity experience. Lots of stories about scans not done, waters broken without consent sought, little staff support post delivery etc are the norm in my experience.
There's no proof that Ireland is safer than anywhere else as recorded mortality rates weren't kept properly, and no way of knowing if there's a connection between our abortion laws and maternal death rates.

sunshine and showers

rox5 wrote: »

I always thought that abortion was illegal in Ireland except if mother's life was in danger or if she was suicidal from rape or mental illness. So when Savita died and their were looking into abortion laws again, I thought they were making it legal altogether. But it's still more or less the same laws as before? Can someone explain it to me, as I am a bit confused about all this.

Essentially, abortion was ruled by the Supreme Court to be legal in Ireland in cases where there was a real and substantial risk to the mother's life from medical reasons, or a risk of suicide. The government should have taken that 1992 ruling and created legislation to outline how doctors could determine was constituted a "real and substantial risk". They didn't. Two different governments over the years didn't like that fact that suicide could allow for an abortion in Ireland, so they held referendums to try to get the people to vote that abortions would not be allowed on the grounds of suicide. Both times, these proposals were rejected, so suicide remains a ground for a legal abortion in Ireland.

This legislation is what the government should have done much sooner after the 1992 X case. All it does it clarify for medical professionals how to determine when a woman can have a legal abortion in Ireland, which is still only in cases where the pregnancy puts the woman's life in danger, or where there is a risk of suicide because of the pregnancy.

prodigal_son wrote: »

Basically the government want abortion on the books. Ireland is one of the safest places in the world to have a baby because every single effort is made to save the child and mother.

As it stands a child will be aborted if the mothers life is at risk 100% of the time. The problem is that this woman was admitted with foetal distress. She had a high survival chance, but of course there was a risk to her life.

She wanted an abortion because she felt that the risk wasn't worth it, the doctors felt her life wasn't in risk, that they would wait and see. Her life became at risk when the child had already died.

So what the government wants is the ability to abort over a future risk to your life that is not present yet. So you will have 99% survival rate risk but be able to get an abortion because your life is at 1% risk. This is where the doctors will not abort now.

I think the system is fine, and that standards will go down as ireland deals with less and less complicated pregnancies and offers abortion to tricky pregnancies.

I think if you don't want to accept a slight risk to have a child, then you should go to another country to have it, and not bring in abortion here.

That is absolutely not true. I have no idea where you got that information, but it is not correct.
The law has not been changed, but clarified/put in writing.
I have combined sections 7 and 8 of the act for ease of reading.

Risk of loss of life from physical illness/medical emergency
7. (1) It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended where—
(a) the medical procedure is carried out by an obstetrician at an appropriate institution, and
(b) subject to section 19, two medical practitioners, having examined the pregnant woman, have jointly certified in good faith that—
(i) there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life from a physical illness/medical emergency, and
(ii) in their reasonable opinion, that risk can only be averted by carrying out that medical procedure.

Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013

B0jangles

prodigal_son wrote: »

Basically the government want abortion on the books. Ireland is one of the safest places in the world to have a baby because every single effort is made to save the child and mother.

As it stands a child will be aborted if the mothers life is at risk 100% of the time. The problem is that this woman was admitted with foetal distress. She had a high survival chance, but of course there was a risk to her life.

She wanted an abortion because she felt that the risk wasn't worth it, the doctors felt her life wasn't in risk, that they would wait and see. Her life became at risk when the child had already died.

So what the government wants is the ability to abort over a future risk to your life that is not present yet. So you will have 99% survival rate risk but be able to get an abortion because your life is at 1% risk. This is where the doctors will not abort now.

I think the system is fine, and that standards will go down as ireland deals with less and less complicated pregnancies and offers abortion to tricky pregnancies.

I think if you don't want to accept a slight risk to have a child, then you should go to another country to have it, and not bring in abortion here.

Is your username accurate? Are you a man?

If so, then maybe fúck the hell off and let the women of Ireland decide on an issue that will only directly affect them? I am not happy to accept a risk of me dying, even it if it is only 1 in 100, even if it is only 1 in 1000.

I exist.

I am a real, living person.

I deserve to take precedence over an unconscious developing mass of cells.

iwantmydinner

prodigal_son wrote: »

Basically the government want abortion on the books. Ireland is one of the safest places in the world to have a baby because every single effort is made to save the child and mother.

As it stands a child will be aborted if the mothers life is at risk 100% of the time. The problem is that this woman was admitted with foetal distress. She had a high survival chance, but of course there was a risk to her life.

She wanted an abortion because she felt that the risk wasn't worth it, the doctors felt her life wasn't in risk, that they would wait and see. Her life became at risk when the child had already died.

So what the government wants is the ability to abort over a future risk to your life that is not present yet. So you will have 99% survival rate risk but be able to get an abortion because your life is at 1% risk. This is where the doctors will not abort now.

I think the system is fine, and that standards will go down as ireland deals with less and less complicated pregnancies and offers abortion to tricky pregnancies.

I think if you don't want to accept a slight risk to have a child, then you should go to another country to have it, and not bring in abortion here.

Couple of things:

- What does "abortion on the books" mean?? Bizarre statement.

- Ireland is not one of the safest places in the world to give birth. It's average.

- As it stands, there's actually a huge lack of clarity over what happens when a pregnant woman's life is at risk. THAT'S WHY SAVITA HALAPPANAVAR DIED. Christ.

- Give Ms Halappanavar the dignity of naming her when you're referring to her. "This woman..." FFS.

- The report into her death is widely available. I suggest you read it, because your description of how events unfolded leading up to her death is wrong, wrong, wrong and more wrong.

- HAVE YOU EVEN READ THE BILL?? Abortions will only be available where there is a "real and substantial risk" to the life of the pregnant woman. I'm no expert, but I doubt a 1% risk will come under the "real and substantial" category. READ THE GODDAMNED BILL and stop spewing dangerous and inflammatory information about its contents.

- Any system, in which an otherwise healthy 31 year old woman dies for want of being able to terminate a pregnancy that was already in process of miscarrying is NOT a system that is "fine".

- Your last sentence just p!ssed me right the hell off. And again, is full of inaccuracy and contradiction.

If you're going to argue against the legislation, at least get your facts right.

eviltwin

prodigal_son wrote: »

I think if you don't want to accept a slight risk to have a child, then you should go to another country to have it, and not bring in abortion here.

I wonder would you be so flippant if it was your wife or girlfriend. As a woman, my life and health has to come first. I have too many people who love me and who depend on me. I'm not going to be a martyr for an unborn baby.

Going to another country might be easy if its early enough on in the pregnancy, fast forward a few months though, throw in a complication and its no easy task, in fact it could be more dangerous to the woman in the long run to go through that ordeal. And then there is the cost....

I'm so insulted my 30 plus years of living and contributing to this country seems to count for nothing when compared to an unborn child I'm carrying, that we are classed as equals.

Me - a grown woman, a wife, mother, daughter, friend, living, breathing, citizen - I'm not considered a greater importance. I'm put on a par with a foetus that hasn't even been conceived yet and that sickens me.

Fitzg

Personally I feel 'going to another country' is asking a lot. I pay tax here and believe I should have the right to access abortion in my home country. If I had to terminate a pregnancy because of the risk to my health or because I chose to I would want to have that procedure carried out here - with the support of my own doctor, my own family and community. I don't believe it's a viable option to simply lump someone with the stigma and added financial expense of going to another country.