Clare Daly TD

Muahahaha

I've got to say fair play to Clare Daly and her bill on fatal fetal abnormalities, I admire her for never giving up the fight. The government are calling her bill unconstitutional yet they wouldn't allow her see the ruling from the Attorney General. 81% of the Irish public were in favour of legislating on fatal fetal abnormalities on Claire Bynes poll last night but the govt. just wants to kick the abortion can down the road a few years if they can. But Clare Daly keeps chipping and chipping away at it and now today the government will whip their TD's into voting against a bill that would put an end to forcing women to carrying a dead baby inside of them for months till it is 'born'.

She really has been one of the best performers in this Dail and on this issue alone it is very difficult to disagree with anything she says. The govt are saying they don't intend legislating for this because 'they have no mandate' yet its pretty obvious that any sane person would not wish a woman to carry a baby inside her that is going to last only a few minutes outside of the womb. It's barbaric for the state to control women's bodies in that way and its obvious by opinion polls that the vast majority of people feel that way yet our government seems to be doing their best to avoid legislating for the anomaly

Fair play to Clare Daly for highlighting their ineptitude in the face of overwhelming public support for her bill.

gandalf

TBH the mainstream parties run a mile from anything to do with abortion.

Credit where credit is due. I really do not see how anyone with a shred of decency could appose the affected people having a choice on what to do when they are faced with fatal fetal abnormalities. It should always be the choice and the business of the effected people and no one else.

BoJack Horseman

Much kudos to Daly for this effort.

Its a shame its stymied by a FG fear of a civil war within its ranks.

Oh for an economically centrist /socially liberal party..... Why can't we have one!

marienbad

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Much kudos to Daly for this effort.

Its a shame its stymied by a FG fear of a civil war within its ranks.

Oh for an economically centrist /socially liberal party..... Why can't we have one!

Not just FG I think .

BoJack Horseman

marienbad wrote: »

Not just FG I think .

Well, if Labour decided to vote with Daly on this bill, it wouldn't cause much of an issue internally.... there isn't really a religious conservative wing in the party.

However, when a do-nothing fudge of a bill like the "protection of life during...." bill split FG.
Going further would devastate them.

marienbad

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Well, if Labour decided to vote with Daly on this bill, it wouldn't cause much of an issue internally.... there isn't really a religious conservative wing in the party.

However, when a do-nothing fudge of a bill like the "protection of life during...." bill split FG.
Going further would devastate them.

It might , but the same would apply to FF if they had their usual numbers and to some of the independents .

But no one is going to nail their colours to the mast on a bill that has no chance .

FTA69

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Much kudos to Daly for this effort.

Its a shame its stymied by a FG fear of a civil war within its ranks.

Oh for an economically centrist /socially liberal party..... Why can't we have one!

Spot on. The abortion stuff has gone absolutely nowhere, not because the average person doesn't want to see change but because of a political inertia within the major parties. I'd say only a minority of the FF and FG parties are absolutist on this issue but they are numerous enough to cause a massive headache to whoever is in power so the issue gets sidelined and round and round we go.

mikom

The independents are a blessing.
They keep stirring the pot which is one way of effecting progress in a system where parties are happy to keep the status quo with their small little balls.

Long may the independents sit.

Stabshauptmann

Irish constitution:
The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

This is the confines of the law.

A local county council can't legalise drink driving so long as the Dail says it's illegal.
The Dail can't pass a law that is unconstitutional.

This has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, just in relation to Daly's comment that its 100% untrue the bill is unconstitutional. Unfortunately if the foetus is still alive, legally the only way to have an abortion is if there is a risk to the mother's life.

For Reals

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Irish constitution:
The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

This is the confines of the law.

A local county council can't legalise drink driving so long as the Dail says it's illegal.
The Dail can't pass a law that is unconstitutional.

This has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, just in relation to Daly's comment that its 100% untrue the bill is unconstitutional. Unfortunately if the foetus is still alive, legally the only way to have an abortion is if there is a risk to the mother's life.

If this is the case, any push in that direction may assist in having it changed. Rules are there to hold society together, but antiquated ones can do the opposite too.

jobbridge4life

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Irish constitution:
The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

This is the confines of the law.

A local county council can't legalise drink driving so long as the Dail says it's illegal.
The Dail can't pass a law that is unconstitutional.

This has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, just in relation to Daly's comment that its 100% untrue the bill is unconstitutional. Unfortunately if the foetus is still alive, legally the only way to have an abortion is if there is a risk to the mother's life.

You say that as though there was some sort of black and white, pass-fail test that we can do to check immediately if the bill is unconstitutional. Put it in a bath of water if she floats its constitutional if it sinks its a witch!

The only way to know in concrete terms if a bill is unconstitutional is if fails a legalchallenge. Even if the majority of legal experts opine that it is unconstitutional you can be sure there are plenty to argue the opposite. Until it passes or fails judicial scrutiny all we have is people giving their informed opinions.

Larbre34

I agree it should be tested, after all the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act was still passed within the confines of that amendment.

For starters you could say that a diagnosed fetal abnormality that leads to incompatibility with life would satisfy the "as far as practicable" clause.

Alan_P

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You say that as though there was some sort of black and white, pass-fail test that we can do to check immediately if the bill is unconstitutional. Put it in a bath of water if she floats its constitutional if it sinks its a witch!

The only way to know in concrete terms if a bill is unconstitutional is if fails a legalchallenge.

True, but you should explain that to Clare Daly, who's 100% certain that it's untrue her bill is unconstitutional.This despite the fact that she has no legal qualifications or experience, unless you count the time she was jailed for breaching court orders over bin collection protests (the water charges lost cause of it's day).

The Government, of course, has followed standard practice in relation to any bill of dubious constitutionality, and asked the Attorney General. The AG, who does actually have legal qualifications, says it is unconstitutional, and I'd accept her judgement over Clare Daly's.

Tombo2001

Very well put OP.

The remark that stood out this morning on the radio was when she said "Is the government actually going to govern for the people in this instance".....which is a fairly fundamental issue when ya think about it.

The other point I think worth making is that Independent TDs almost by definition need to be Single Issue politicians. They may have views on a wide range of things, but they cant influence a wide range of things. She's not looking for some gimmick like a Casino in the middle of Clondalkin.

They have one shot, and a lot of them don't use it. Tony Gregory's one shot was inner city Dublin. This is Clare Dalys one shot and she is using it well.

I think she is comfortably the stand-out Independent in the current government.

jobbridge4life

Alan_P wrote: »

True, but you should explain that to Clare Daly, who's 100% certain that it's untrue her bill is unconstitutional.This despite the fact that she has no legal qualifications or experience, unless you count the time she was jailed for breaching court orders over bin collection protests (the water charges lost cause of it's day).

The Government, of course, has followed standard practice in relation to any bill of dubious constitutionality, and asked the Attorney General. The AG, who does actually have legal qualifications, says it is unconstitutional, and I'd accept her judgement over Clare Daly's.

I'd wager that Daly has consulted some legal heads of her own. Not to mention that there are probably a tonne of pro-choice lawyers only too keen to make the case that this bill could be considered constitutional. Regardless I am not making any comment on the likely outcome of a challenge only that people on either said declaring the constitutionality or otherwise of a piece of law or bill as though it was fact before an actual challenge are being disingenuous.

Tombo2001

Alan_P wrote: »

True, but you should explain that to Clare Daly, who's 100% certain that it's untrue her bill is unconstitutional.This despite the fact that she has no legal qualifications or experience, unless you count the time she was jailed for breaching court orders over bin collection protests (the water charges lost cause of it's day).

The Government, of course, has followed standard practice in relation to any bill of dubious constitutionality, and asked the Attorney General. The AG, who does actually have legal qualifications, says it is unconstitutional, and I'd accept her judgement over Clare Daly's.

If we are going on what they are qualified for, our politicians should be limited to governing the school system.

Alan_P

Tombo2001 wrote: »

If we are going on what they are qualified for, our politicians should be limited to governing the school system.

Like the current and previous Minister for Health, who are both doctors ? Like the Minister for Agriculture, who has a degree in, wait for it , agricultural science ? Or the Minister for Enterprise,Jobs and Innovation who has a MPhil in Economics from Oxford ? Or the Minister for Social Protection, who has a degree in commerce and has lectured in accountancy ? Like the Minister for Finance, who has a degree in English and Economics ?

Alan_P

Alan_P wrote: »

Like the current and previous Minister for Health, who are both doctors ? Like the Minister for Agriculture, who has a degree in, wait for it , agricultural science ? Or the Minister for Enterprise,Jobs and Innovation who has a MPhil in Economics from Oxford ? Or the Minister for Social Protection, who has a degree in commerce and has lectured in accountancy ? Like the Minister for Finance, who has a degree in English and Economics ?

Bit mad that you can't get a regular job these days without having a masters all the same

RobertKK

Clare Daly only sees one side of the argument.

I have a close relation and she had a difficult pregnancy, she was told her baby would not live beyond 40 hours, a nurse in a Dublin hospital hinted she could go abroad and have an abortion. The person in question would not support such a decision.
Her own doctor was very supportive and said that once the unborn child was alive there was always hope.
So she had to have the baby in Dublin with the newborn rushed to Crumlin.
The child is now 7 years of age, you wouldn't know there is a health problem, but that child was suppose to be long dead by now.

This diagnosis came from the top maternity hospital in the country. So I can't support a bill as if fatal fetal abnormalities are straight forward to diagnose.
This is how it is portrayed to the public.

mikom

RobertKK wrote: »

The person in question would not support such a decision.

Great that she had a CHOICE.

RobertKK

mikom wrote: »

Great that she had a CHOICE.

Kill the unborn and that decision would have been based on wrongful information from the experts in this country.

Is that how one should make a choice?

conorh91

I'm not a fan of Clare Daly but I don't doubt her bona fides on this matter.

It's not clear why the Government won't release the AG's advice. Perhaps they are concerned about undermining the authority of the office of the AG.

If the advice were published, it could be open season on her Office. Presumably, an RTE producer would immediately field a team of former AGs or eminent senior counsel to discredit the opinion, resulting in increased pressure on the Government to legislate, or for the AG to resign.

johnnyskeleton

Does anyone have the actual wording of the bill by any chance? Its impossible to form a view on the proposals constitutionality or otherwise without seeing what it actually says.

If the baby is stillborn, doctors can legally remove it now afaik. If the baby has an abnormality that will not automatically result in death weare going down the dangerous path of eugenics (of the "i dont want a hild with downes syndrome" variety).

If a child will be born but is not viable, then on one hand it could be like the marie farrell right to die case where the court held that someone did not have such a right - only the right to refuse medical treatment.

efb

Fair Play to CD

Manach

Thankfully a small battle won against the tide of abortion rights activists such as Daly seeking to undermine bit by bit the rather thread bare protections afforded to the unborn.

Godge

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Much kudos to Daly for this effort.

Its a shame its stymied by a FG fear of a civil war within its ranks.

Oh for an economically centrist /socially liberal party..... Why can't we have one!

Bit strange to blame it all on FG. Only 20 voted in favour of the bill.

Only three FF TDs voted in favour - Billy Kelleher, Robert Troy and Niall Collins.
Only one Labour TD voted in favour - Anne Ferris
SF hid behind an abstention vote for fear of splits.
Clare Daly, Roisin Shortall, Mick Wallace, Ruth Coppinger, Maureen O'Sullivan, Catherine Murphy, Joan Collins, Joe Higgins, SBB would all have voted in favour, that takes us up to 13. Who are the other 7?

Noel Grealish, Michael Fitzmaurice, Michael Healy-Rae and Michael Lowry voted against. What about the other independents? Where was Lucinda? What did Shane Ross do? Stephen Donnelly? Finian McGrath? Peter Mathews? the bould Mattie McGrath? Tommy Broughan? Denis Naughten? Thomas Pringle? Billy Timmins?

Questions for all the political parties.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/d%C3%A1il-defeats-clare-daly-s-abortion-bill-1.2098098

Questions also for Clare. If so many are in favour of the principle (as I am), does the lack of support show that more believed the AG's advice? Was it all then a publicity stunt?

For Reals

RobertKK wrote: »

Clare Daly only sees one side of the argument.

...

That's usually how people put forward a motion or a bill, having a specific point of view. Then all the others can debate it and come to a conclusion. Our politicians should have the right to choose.

mikom

mikom wrote: »

Great that she had a CHOICE.

RobertKK wrote: »

Kill the unborn and that decision would have been based on wrongful information from the experts in this country.

Is that how one should make a choice?

That is one choice........... she took the other.

She had a choice.

efb

Thread bare? This country affords the same right to a fertilised bunch of cells as it does a woman...

Fair play to Anne Ferris. Will she be made leave Labour now? I'll probably give her a second choice, but Sinn Fein have definitely lost a voter.

Who wants a spineless govt in place?

Now is not the time for indecision.

super_furry

Weasle tactics from Sinn Fein. Not even bothering to show up to abstain.

Not sure of which was the wind is blowing so they keep the head down and do nothing.

RobertKK

mikom wrote: »

That is one choice........... she took the other.

She had a choice.

Ok guess you think making a choice based on bad information is fine.

RobertKK

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Fair play to Anne Ferris. Will she be made leave Labour now? I'll probably give her a second choice, but Sinn Fein have definitely lost a voter.

Who wants a spineless govt in place?

Now is not the time for indecision.

She was quite thick given it was unconstitutional.

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

Ok guess you think making a choice based on bad information is fine.

Happens all the time in all walks of life , The solution is to correct the information process .not to restrict the choice .

conorh91

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Its a shame its stymied by a FG fear of a civil war within its ranks.

Article 15.4.1°

Obligation not to enact legislation which is repugnant to the Constitution.

If a member of the Oireachtas is in possession of advice of incompatibility regarding a bill, going ahead and attempting to enact it anyway would amount to an act in defiance of the Constitution itself, and a refusal to accept the limits placed on his office under the Constitution.

joe swanson

Such a moral woman. Pity she wasn't thinking about morals when supporting this

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/tds-support-dissident-republican-in-court-case-30888437.html

BoJack Horseman

conorh91 wrote: »

Article 15.4.1°

Obligation not to enact legislation which is repugnant to the Constitution.

Well then,why don't these cretins pass something that is compatible with the papal bull that is the Irish constitution!

oscarBravo

Daly stridently insists that her bill isn't unconstitutional. I'm not sure on what she bases that - the 8th amendment isn't exactly unclear on the subject.

I've seen a great deal of criticism of the government today for not enacting a bill which they had been advised was unconstitutional. I truly don't understand this.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm perfectly content to criticise the government for not proposing to repeal the 8th amendment - but as long as that obscenity remains in our constitution, the government will remain bound by it.

PopePalpatine

Manach wrote: »

Thankfully a small battle won against the tide of abortion rights activists such as Daly seeking to undermine bit by bit the rather thread bare protections afforded to the unborn.

If only you cared as much about the born, instead of engaging in apologetics for child abusers.

K4t

I simply had to laugh at that gormless senator's remark about how "life is full of suffering" in the clip before Daly and Pat Rabitte spoke on primetime tonight. The spirit of Mother Theresa lives on in this backward bastion of catholicism we call a republic.

PopePalpatine

K4t wrote: »

I simply had to laugh at that gormless senator's remark about how "life is full of suffering" in the clip before Daly and Pat Rabitte spoke on primetime tonight. The spirit of Mother Theresa lives on in this backward bastion of catholicism we call a republic.

Funnily enough, when it came to her own illnesses, Mother Teresa didn't deny herself medicine like those who came to her convents.

pwurple

Smacks of a cheap piece of PR from Clare Daly to me. Put forward a bill that can't possibly be voted in because it's blatently unconstitutional... Sick back and collect applause.

K4t

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Funnily enough, when it came to her own illnesses, Mother Teresa didn't deny herself medicine like those who came to her convents.

Correct. She was either severely misguided due to her extreme catholic beliefs or she was just plain evil, or both. Mother Theresa ~ "There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering.” Lovely, sensible woman..

Godge

pwurple wrote: »

Smacks of a cheap piece of PR from Clare Daly to me. Put forward a bill that can't possibly be voted in because it's blatently unconstitutional... Sick back and collect applause.

I don't actually believe this.

I believe she is actually so naive that she thought the bill had a chance, that the constitution didn't matter, that it could be ignored, that the Dail could give two fingers to the Constitution and dare the President to refer it and the Courts to shoot it down cueing outrage at judges and the President. That is actually a more dangerous way of thinking.

efb

Why didn't they publish the AG's advice???

Eoin

So I think I see the reasoning behind the No vote. They got legal advice from the AG that it conflicted with the constitution, and passing it is in itself unconstitutional.

But out of interest, what would be the effects from a legal point of view if it was passed - would someone likely take a case to the supreme court immediately? Presuming it dragged out in court for a while, would it be considered valid law during that time?

It sounds like it could get very messy, which presumably explains the large amount of opposition arses on fences.

efb wrote: »

Why didn't they publish the AG's advice???

Listening to a commentator on the radio today, apparently no government ever does. That doesn't answer your question, but it doesn't seem to be unique to this case anyway.

Godge

efb wrote: »

Why didn't they publish the AG's advice???

When was the last time AG's advice was published?

Cabinet Confidentiality is the answer.

hurlsey

Godge wrote: »

When was the last time AG's advice was published?

Cabinet Confidentiality is the answer.

It has been published twice afaik, once in the 1980s, with ref to the X-case and again in 1995 with ref to Divorce!! I'm unable to find a link atm as soon as I can I'll post it! Afaik there is precedent to publish tge AGs advice!

Muahahaha

RobertKK wrote: »

Clare Daly only sees one side of the argument.

I have a close relation and she had a difficult pregnancy, she was told her baby would not live beyond 40 hours, a nurse in a Dublin hospital hinted she could go abroad and have an abortion. The person in question would not support such a decision..........

This diagnosis came from the top maternity hospital in the country. So I can't support a bill as if fatal fetal abnormalities are straight forward to diagnose.
This is how it is portrayed to the public.

I'm with you on this, if a doctor told me that my child would only have 40 hours to live then I would feel strongly about giving my baby every chance of doing so and I'd also hope that the medical attention was sufficient to make it so.

But no-one is arguing that a baby with a good chance of living 40 hours shourld not be given the chance to live longer. We all want to see that tiny baby survive, it's within our nature to see the underdog succeed and I truly hope success is in your relations future.

But that's not what this Bill by Clare Daly was about. The bill asked to change the law so women would have a choice of what they themselves wanted to do having considered their own individual circumstances, finances and their own annial incomes ability to finance the circa €250,000 it costs to raise a kid in modern day Ireland, in 2015 onwards.

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm not a fan of Clare Daly but I don't doubt her bona fides on this matter.

It's not clear why the Government won't release the AG's advice. Perhaps they are concerned about undermining the authority of the office of the AG.

If the advice were published, it could be open season on her Office. Presumably, an RTE producer would immediately field a team of former AGs or eminent senior counsel to discredit the opinion, resulting in increased pressure on the Government to legislate, or for the AG to resign.

v.good analysis in fairness Conor. Agree with you that it seems FG/Lab are protecting the integrity of the AG's office, she will weather this storm but will have to face a ton of comparisons where the AG's advice was questioned/not followed in years gone past.

Godge wrote: »

Bit strange to blame it all on FG. Only 20 voted in favour of the bill.

Only three FF TDs voted in favour - Billy Kelleher, Robert Troy and Niall Collins.
Only one Labour TD voted in favour - Anne Ferris
SF hid behind an abstention vote for fear of splits.
Clare Daly, Roisin Shortall, Mick Wallace, Ruth Coppinger, Maureen O'Sullivan, Catherine Murphy, Joan Collins, Joe Higgins, SBB would all have voted in favour, that takes us up to 13. Who are the other 7?

Noel Grealish, Michael Fitzmaurice, Michael Healy-Rae and Michael Lowry voted against. What about the other independents? Where was Lucinda? What did Shane Ross do? Stephen Donnelly? Finian McGrath? Peter Mathews? the bould Mattie McGrath? Tommy Broughan? Denis Naughten? Thomas Pringle? Billy Timmins?

Questions for all the political parties.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/d%C3%A1il-defeats-clare-daly-s-abortion-bill-1.2098098

Questions also for Clare. If so many are in favour of the principle (as I am), does the lack of support show that more believed the AG's advice? Was it all then a publicity stunt?

That list of abstentions is unreal. If anything it shows that FF-FG-Lab and SF are not in tune with 81% of the voting Irish public, this has been a bad day for anyone in Ireland who wishes to see progress beyond the barbaric situation that Irish couples are forced to go through right now. The state literally tells couples who are having baby that is going to die that they should still have it and go through the agony of everyone they know congratulating them on it before all the same people console them at the funeral. It is barbaric to put families through that and not give them a choice of what they wanted to do, that's what 104 TDs voted down today

super_furry wrote: »

Weasle tactics from Sinn Fein. Not even bothering to show up to abstain.

Not sure of which was the wind is blowing so they keep the head down and do nothing.

The Shinners are looking the exact same as all the other establishment parties on this topic. Its a real eye opener because I thought they knew which way the wind is blowing but it appears they're just as out of touch with what people want as FF/FG/Lab on this issue

K4t wrote: »

I simply had to laugh at that gormless senator's remark about how "life is full of suffering" in the clip before Daly and Pat Rabitte spoke on primetime tonight. The spirit of Mother Theresa lives on in this backward bastion of catholicism we call a republic.

I think that is Senator Fidelma Healy Eames you're talking about, the same one who didn't pay for her train ticket nor her motor tax. Not to menation that she was involved in a legal battle with a plumber who did a lot of work but his pay was disputed. Make up your own mind on Fidelma Healy Eames and her position to be commenting on moral choices in society.

Godge wrote: »

I don't actually believe this.

I believe she is actually so naive that she thought the bill had a chance, that the constitution didn't matter, that it could be ignored, that the Dail could give two fingers to the Constitution and dare the President to refer it and the Courts to shoot it down cueing outrage at judges and the President. That is actually a more dangerous way of thinking.

I dunno, we have spent way more than €290 million on tribunals, which benfitted no one expect the legal classes who then sunk their new found wealth into property disasters such as Custom House Capital, judges, barristers solicitors, many of the so called cleverst people in Ireland got fooled into 'mezzanine finance' and the FF/PD govt of the day funded their folly back in 2006 by believing that investing in 50,000sqm Ukrainian Shopping centers was the way to go.

So the moral of the story is that lawyers aren't as smart as what they would lead you to believe themselves. The vast majority of lawyers who have connections to the FF/PD/Green govt got caught with their pants down, no doubt about it, even the eejits in the Law Society thought that they were property developers and behaved as such during the Celtic Tiger with their land punts which went awkwardly sour. In short, Irish lawyers who work around the fringes of government are NOT the smartest lawyers on the block,much from this bunch of not too smart lawyers might emerge our Attorney General of the Day. This latest decision by the AG, going against the opinion of the previous AG and another 42 lawyers who have supported the billl, would appear to be more folly that will end up costing the taxpayer more lolly, yet again

Godge wrote: »

When was the last time AG's advice was published?

Cabinet Confidentiality is the answer.

I'm not sure of the exact year but Clre Daly said earlier that the AG has published their advice several times before, the precedent of it has already been set more than 30 years ago, during the 1970's, which I thin k most people would agree would have been a quite repressive time.

Yet here we are in 2o14 and Enda Kenny is refusing to let the people of Ireland listen to the advice that their taxes have paid for. The arrogance of this government is astoinishing at this stage, they're behaving as our 'betters', no doubt about it Godge

I am strongly in favour of a woman having the choice. However, if anyone thinks some act is unconstitutional, they can always take it to the courts and test it. I think Clare aims to hog the limelight while she can.

efb

Deleted User wrote: »

I am strongly in favour of a woman having the choice. However, if anyone thinks some act is unconstitutional, they can always take it to the courts and test it. I think Clare aims to hog the limelight while she can.

lol