Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Ms X had travelled to the UK with her parents to kill her unborn child. She was ordered by the State to return to Ireland when a garda was asked if the remains of the foetus could be used to prosecute her rapist.

Right... so the AG attempted to prevent her from travelling by obtaining an injunction, but failed to stop her. I think that's what i said. How exactly was she ordered to return? I understood that once they were informed of the injunction the family returned to Ireland voluntarily; and I can't see how the State can order someone in another jurisdiction to do anything. Perhaps you could explain that? Also, didn't her family inform the Gardaí they were taking her to England for an abortion, and they asked (before she travelled) whether the foetus could be tested after it was aborted to provide proof of the paternity of the accused in the rape case?

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

Right... so the AG attempted to prevent her from travelling by obtaining an injunction, but failed to stop her. I think that's what i said. How exactly was she ordered to return? I understood that once they were informed of the injunction the family returned to Ireland voluntarily; and I can't see how the State can order someone in another jurisdiction to do anything. Perhaps you could explain that? Also, didn't her family inform the Gardaí they were taking her to England for an abortion, and they asked (before she travelled) whether the foetus could be tested after it was aborted to provide proof of the paternity of the accused in the rape case?

No, the injuction was issued when she was in the UK. How can you prevent someone from travelling to somewhere they have already travelled to and arrived at? The injunction ordered her not to have an abortion, not that she wasn't to travel to somewhere she already was. The injuction was about the vindication of the right to life of the unborn, not the right to travel.
As for why her parents brought her home, I have no idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X
I know its WIKI but its pretty clear what the injunction was about.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

The state also forbade a woman from travelling to Switzerland to kill herself, and actually prosecuted her friend for trying to organize the journey. It seems the state cares more about preventing dying people from killing themselves than about saving healthy fetuses.

Is that true? How exactly did the State forbid her from travelling?
And, was her friend not actually accused of assisting her suicide, which is, of course, illegal?
I'm not sure why prosecuting people for doing something illegal makes you imagine the State cares more about preventing dying people from killing themselves than about saving healthy fetuses.... if you discover the State did nothing to prevent her killing herself, will you then say the State cares more about saving healthy foetuses (not sure why it's supposed to care about saving healthy foetuses but anyway) than preventing dying people from killing themselves? I mean, is it an either/or thing for some reason? What tips the balance, and who is supposed to know the criteria?

volchitsa

lazygal wrote: »

No, the injuction was issued when she was in the UK. How can you prevent someone from travelling to somewhere they have already travelled to and arrived at? The injunction ordered her not to have an abortion, not that she wasn't to travel to somewhere she already was. The injuction was about the vindication of the right to life of the unborn, not the right to travel.
As for why her parents brought her home, I have no idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X
I know its WIKI but its pretty clear what the injunction was about.

Presumably they brought her home because if she was injuncted by the Irish government to stop her having an abortion in the UK, they felt their only choices were to bring her home or to remain in exile in the UK. What else could they do?

If it were now of course, they would probably just defy the law, have the abortion and call the authorities' bluff, but back then it wasn't at all clear that this ban on abortion as really just a NIMBY measure - lots of people still took it seriously.

lazygal

volchitsa wrote: »

Presumably they brought her home because if she was injuncted by the Irish government to stop her having an abortion in the UK, they felt their only choices were to bring her home or to remain in exile in the UK. What else could they do?

If it were now of course, they would probably just defy the law, have the abortion and call the authorities' bluff, but back then it wasn't at all clear that this ban on abortion as really just a NIMBY measure - lots of people still took it seriously.

The right to travel and information was voted on after this and thereafter inserted into the constitution. So after X there was no issue about travelling to kill the unborn, no matter what the reason. At the time however the AG felt he had to vindicate the right to life of the unborn and the High Court agreed. It was only the Supreme Court that changed that.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

No, the injuction was issued when she was in the UK. How can you prevent someone from travelling to somewhere they have already travelled to and arrived at? The injunction ordered her not to have an abortion, not that she wasn't to travel to somewhere she already was.
The injuction was about the vindication of the right to life of the unborn, not the right to travel.
As for why her parents brought her home, I have no idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X
I know its WIKI but its pretty clear what the injunction was about.

You've dropped then notion that she was ordered by the State to return to Ireland when a garda was asked if the remains of the foetus could be used to prosecute her rapist then? Yes it is Wiki, but rather than guessing what the injunction said, why not find out before leaping to yet another conclusion?
"The following day after an ex parte application to the High Court (Costello J), the Attorney General obtained an interim injunction preventing the defendants from leaving the country for a period of nine months or from procuring or arranging a termination of the pregnancy of the first defendant. In the meantime the defendants had left the jurisdiction and were in England arranging the abortion."
Of course, the other thing is that an injunction from an Irish Court preventing an abortion has no standing in the UK; once Miss X was there, she could not be prevented from having an abortion, or compelled to return to Ireland.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Presumably they brought her home because if she was injuncted by the Irish government to stop her having an abortion in the UK, they felt their only choices were to bring her home or to remain in exile in the UK. What else could they do? If it were now of course, they would probably just defy the law, have the abortion and call the authorities' bluff, but back then it wasn't at all clear that this ban on abortion as really just a NIMBY measure - lots of people still took it seriously.

Heck of a lot of presuming there The same kind of presumption as leads to a claim that the State prevents people from traveling to commit suicide?

PlainP

Absolam wrote: »

There are fifty articles in the Constitution, with about three hundred and sixty sub clauses (of which the right to life is one). It has been amended twenty nine times in the last seventy six years; fourteen of those you had the opportunity to participate in. I hardly think not getting to vote on the remaining three hundred and ninety odd means Ireland is particularly undemocratic; we're a long way from being able to rewrite every Constitutional provision for every generation.

There has been two failed referendum since this was put into the constitution. One in 1992 (which I was too young to vote) and one in 2002 which I voted on.

So I don't know where you are getting your numbers from.

No government since 1983 has wanted to have an abortion referendum. The last shower of eejits in the Dial also didn't want it.

aloyisious

@Absolom: Re your :I understood that once they were informed of the injunction the family returned to Ireland voluntarily; and I can't see how the State can order someone in another jurisdiction to do anything. Perhaps you could explain that? - It would be explained by the fear of themselves (the parents) being liable for prosecution in relation to their daughter having an abortion after the AG got his injunction (aiding and abetting another person in pursuit of ignoring the injunction they knew existed). As you posted, the AG's injunction was worded to cover a nine (9) month period, not so coincidentally the approx period a pregnant woman would carry a feotus in her womb. I'd hazard a guess the chance of prosecution was on the mind of the parents, and also on the girl's mind: that she naturally didn't want them prosecuted because they stood by her in what she decided to do with the feotus in her womb, instead of showing her the door. The state ordering some-one in another jurisdiction to do anything would be in line with what you wrote about the state extending its influence abroad.

Hotblack Desiato

volchitsa wrote: »

The state also forbade a woman from travelling to Switzerland to kill herself, and actually prosecuted her friend for trying to organize the journey. It seems the state cares more about preventing dying people from killing themselves than about saving healthy fetuses.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/women-prevented-from-travelling-to-switzerland-for-assisted-suicide-503786.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/dpp-to-get-file-on-woman-who-died-of-overdose-after-travel-plans-halted-1.486186

Right to travel me arse.

Absolam

PlainP wrote: »

There has been two failed referendum since this was put into the constitution. One in 1992 (which I was too young to vote) and one in 2002 which I voted on. So I don't know where you are getting your numbers from. No government since 1983 has wanted to have an abortion referendum. The last shower of eejits in the Dial also didn't want it.

Well, you say you're 37, so you've been eligible to participate in referenda since around 1997, right? if we take a cue from Lazygal and trust our old pal wikipedia, we can see that there have been twenty Constitutional Amendments put to the people in that timeframe, of which fourteen passed, so you might have had a say in all fourteen, and of course the other six that didn't pass. Hardly a lack of democratic participation in fairness, unless you decided not to participate, in which case it was your own fault.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

@Absolom: Re your :I understood that once they were informed of the injunction the family returned to Ireland voluntarily; and I can't see how the State can order someone in another jurisdiction to do anything. Perhaps you could explain that? - It would be explained by the fear of themselves (the parents) being liable for prosecution in relation to their daughter having an abortion after the AG got his injunction (aiding and abetting another person in pursuit of ignoring the injunction they knew existed).

But I didn't ask why they returned? I asked Lazygal to explain her allegation that "She was ordered by the State to return to Ireland when a garda was asked if the remains of the foetus could be used to prosecute her rapist.". I'm sure her parents were concerned that they and their daughter might be found to be in contempt of court certainly. I'm not so convinced that their concern outweighed their daughters concern about being pregnant, which according to her was so grave as to make her certain that she would take her own life rather than remain pregnant, but I suppose I can't really speak for their motivations, perhaps they were astonishingly law abiding people.

aloyisious wrote: »

As you posted, the AG's injunction was worded to cover a nine (9) month period, not so coincidentally the approx period a pregnant woman would carry a feotus in her womb. I'd hazard a guess the chance of prosecution was on the mind of the parents, and also on the girl's mind: that she naturally didn't want them prosecuted because they stood by her in what she decided to do with the feotus in her womb, instead of showing her the door.

It's certainly possible they were concerned about prosecution and decided to come home, which is quite a bit different from being ordered by the State to return, I think you'll agree. As I said though, on the one hand, prepared to take her own life rather than continue her pregnancy, on the other, when about to terminate the pregnancy prepared to give up that chance and remain pregnant in order to avoid a potential contempt of court charge? It's a tricky one to reconcile....

aloyisious wrote: »

The state ordering some-one in another jurisdiction to do anything would be in line with what you wrote about the state extending its influence abroad.

Which is to say, had the State (or more accurately Court) ordered someone in another jurisdiction to do anything it would have had no effect because it would be outside the Court's jurisdiction? I certainly agree.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/women-prevented-from-travelling-to-switzerland-for-assisted-suicide-503786.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/dpp-to-get-file-on-woman-who-died-of-overdose-after-travel-plans-halted-1.486186
Right to travel me arse.

I don't see anything about the State forbidding her from travelling though? And you have to admit the Breaking News headline is more than a tad misleading, eh? "Women prevented from travelling to Switzerland for assisted suicide" followed by ""She was told that if she travelled with her friend to Switzerland and her friend did avail of assisted suicide, on her return she was in danger of prosecution." So... not so much prevented from travelling as warned of the consequences?
I guess there's lies, damn lies, and really poor journalism.... I blame clickbait culture myself.

volchitsa

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/women-prevented-from-travelling-to-switzerland-for-assisted-suicide-503786.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/dpp-to-get-file-on-woman-who-died-of-overdose-after-travel-plans-halted-1.486186

Right to travel me arse.

Possibly a risk of people going off topic here, but if we can keep to just the comparison, I do think the contrast between the two situations is indicative of what is really going on with the "right to travel" for abortion : there's a programme this evening on the BBC called "Simon's choice" following a man who is faced with the decision on whether or not to go to Switzerland for assisted suicide, and of course his family.

If he were Irish, wife and family would presumably be tried for even attempting to book the journey, never mind accompanying him as they did. Right to travel? I think not.

Proof if proof were needed that the "right to travel for abortion" is no more than a deliberate decision to allow abortion without saying so.

The Black Oil

Er...did anyone see this last night? I'll try to find it so as not just to rely on a tweet.

https://twitter.com/colettebrowne/status/697206894683885568

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Possibly a risk of people going off topic here, but if we can keep to just the comparison, I do think the contrast between the two situations is indicative of what is really going on with the "right to travel" for abortion : there's a programme this evening on the BBC called "Simon's choice" following a man who is faced with the decision on whether or not to go to Switzerland for assisted suicide, and of course his family. If he were Irish, wife and family would presumably be tried for even attempting to book the journey, never mind accompanying him as they did. Right to travel? I think not. Proof if proof were needed that the "right to travel for abortion" is no more than a deliberate decision to allow abortion without saying so.

Is the situation in Britain not much the same as in Ireland? Suicide is not an offense, travelling to commit suicide is not an offense, and assisting a suicide is an offense. The same in both jurisdictions, isn't it?
I imagine if his wife and family had participated in assisting his suicide, they would have been as liable for prosecution in the UK as in Ireland, despite having a right to travel nonetheless. I recall there was an issue in the UK a few years ago where the House of Lords felt it was 'unclear' whether simply travelling with someone constituted assisting their suicide and was therefore prosecute-able, so it seems the British position might have been even more restrictive than Irelands. Anyways, I think this (post above) is proof, if proof were needed, that some people will try to present just about any tragic situation to serve their agenda, even if it means 'presuming' facts to do so....

MrPudding

Sigh...

MrP

recedite

MrPudding wrote: »

Sigh...

MrP

I don't think this is over yet. If you remember, last year Judge Horner ruled that the assembly were required to legislate for (at least) some limited form of abortion, in line with established EU human rights. If they don't comply, they are in breach of the Good Friday Agreement.
However, the MLA's were given some hope that this advice was wrong when John Larkin QC "Northern Irelands First Catholic AG" butted in and lodged an appeal against Horner's ruling. This appeal has not yet concluded AFAIK.

Larkin has stirred things up before...

A devout Catholic with a well-known pro-life attitude on the abortion issue, he courted controversy again in 2012 when he volunteered his services to Stormont’s justice committee to assist in an inquiry - up to and including questioning witnesses on the committee’s behalf - into a newly opened Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast.
In another furore, the UK Government moved to distance itself from Mr Larkin’s intervention in a gay adoption case brought by two Austrian lesbians in the European Court of Human Rights.
Mr Larkin made a submission to the court arguing that countries like Austria and Northern Ireland should have the right to opt out of same sex adoption legislation.
On the latter two issues, Mr Larkin’s critics questioned whether he was over-reaching the remit of his office and allowing his personal views to influence his work.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I don't think this is over yet. If you remember, last year Judge Horner ruled that the assembly were required to legislate for (at least) some limited form of abortion, in line with established EU human rights. If they don't comply, they are in breach of the Good Friday Agreement. However, the MLA's were given some hope that this advice was wrong when John Larkin QC "Northern Irelands First Catholic AG" butted in and lodged an appeal against Horner's ruling. This appeal has not yet concluded AFAIK Larkin has stirred things up before...

I'd be skeptical that Judge Horners ruling will be upheld (insofar as it's being inferred that it would expand the degree to which abortion is available in NI). He relied on Article 8 as his foundation for the notion that the assembly were required to legislate for abortion, but the ECtHR has already found that Article 8 doesn't confer a right to abortion. At best I think they'll be required to legislate for abortion in much the same way as the Irish Government were when the ECtHR made their judgement. They'll have to ensure that access to, and information about, legal abortion is clearly available under the circumstances that NI law permits abortion; where there is a direct threat to the life or lasting health of the prospective mother.

aloyisious

This a link to an article in today's Irish Examiner by Margaret Hickey; http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/eight-amendment-lets-debate-the-meaning-of-humanity-381407.html.

It seem's to be an anti-abortion argument article. Margaret refers to a few of the reasons given by Pro-choice activists for women to have the right of choice for an abortion, asking how proper medical scans can be done on a feotus in the first trimester AND how a rape can be proved to be a fact within the first trimester, the time period posited as the best in which an abortion should be provided. That last is aimed at Ivana Bacik, a barrister and criminal law expert.

IMO. it'd be safe to assume that the two arguments, medical scans proving a feotus is anencephalic and a rape claim is genuine within the first trimester, will be put forward by those opposing abortion and a vote to scrap the 8th amendment argument.

rainbow kirby

Rape is a horrific violation of a woman’s body in everyone’s book. But abortion is a greater violation for the unborn child who pays the ultimate price for a crime he or she is wholly innocent of. By comparison, the rapist, if convicted, will probably serve four or so years in prison.

I lose any and all respect for anyone who comes out with crap like this.

Fatal fetal abnormality is even more problematic. With advances in embryology and medical scanning, more and more can be known about the genetic profile of the unborn child but it can take considerably longer than the first trimester to discover the extent and nature of abnormality.

And this is pretty much why it should be a decision between a pregnant person and her medical team in the case of a serious or fatal abnormality with few to no restrictions that would interfere with the diagnostic process. The UK limit of 24 weeks is still tight in some of these cases.

robdonn

rainbow kirby wrote: »

The UK limit of 24 weeks is still tight in some of these cases.

Actually FFA is one of the cases that the UK allows an abortion after 24 weeks, based on The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

Hotblack Desiato

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/bishop-urges-voters-to-question-candidates-on-eight-amendment-1.2534260

A Catholic bishop has urged voters to question all general election candidates about their views and voting intentions on repealing the Eighth Amendment

Oh we will! Don't worry!

recedite

Zika virus seems to be changing the erstwhile strict implementation of some South American abortion laws.

Colombia has reported more than 5,000 cases of pregnant women coming down with the mosquito-borne Zika virus. The number has increased by almost 60 percent over the past week....

Colombian authorities have urged women to avoid getting pregnant because the Zika virus has been associated with serious birth defects such as microcephaly, which causes babies to be born with smaller skulls and brains. Women have been urged to delay pregnancy for six to eight months, while pregnant women with Zika have been granted access to much-restricted abortion services, Reuters reported.

https://www.rt.com/news/332391-colombia-zika-spread-pregnant/

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I'd be skeptical that Judge Horners ruling will be upheld...
At best I think they'll be required to legislate for abortion in much the same way as the Irish Government were..

If they follow our lead, then they will comply, and the draft legislation should be ready in another 22 years or so.

Cabaal

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/labour-to-insist-on-abortion-vote-in-future-fg-coalition-deal-1.2534759

Labour will insist on a referendum to remove the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which gives equal right to life to a mother and her unborn child, as a prerequisite to entering coalition with Fine Gael.

Labour launches its general election manifesto today, the final party to do so in the campaign. Fine Gael’s manifesto only commits to a citizens’ assembly to examine the Eighth Amendment.

Labour sources, however, said any process must lead to a referendum, and this would be one of three main elements it would insist on in a programme for government.

A Catholic bishop urged voters to question all general election candidates on their views on abortion.

Just like the asked people to go against marriage equality
:rolleyes:

As well as the referendum, Labour will also insist in a on an increased emphasis on public spending and that tax cuts be directed towards lower earners. Sources said the three issues will be key issues in any negotiations with Fine Gael.

Bishop of Cork and Ross John Buckley said it was sad that a child’s life-limiting condition was being used by some candidates to promote the legalisation of abortion on wider grounds.

aloyisious

This is a link to an article by Maev McDaid on her personal situation and how the law here (North and South) affects and affected her personally. http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/generation-emigration/with-reproductive-rights-from-victorian-times-how-could-i-move-back-to-ireland-1.2535419

Now here's something I would like an answer to without any personal points of view being inserted as guidance to what I should research. I'd like to know the titles of laws existing on the republic's statute law books previously governing abortion (and presently surpassed in law by the 8th amendment) which would re-apply to abortion here if the 8th amendment was taken out of the constitution. Just post the titles in a reply please. Googling for information at the moment mostly get's Points Of View responses from interested parties, NOT the law titles which would allow singular research.

robdonn

aloyisious wrote: »

Now here's something I would like an answer to without any personal points of view being inserted as guidance to what I should research. I'd like to know the titles of laws existing on the republic's statute law books previously governing abortion (and presently surpassed in law by the 8th amendment) which would re-apply to abortion here if the 8th amendment was taken out of the constitution. Just post the titles in a reply please. Googling for information at the moment mostly get's Points Of View responses from interested parties, NOT the law titles which would allow singular research.

AFAIK the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 was upheld by the new Irish government at independence, so I presume that this would be the fall-back. I also believe that the 8th was introduced as a response to the legalisation of contraception (made illegal by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935) so maybe look into the Health (Family Planning) Act?

volchitsa

I seem to remember reading that the OATP act was superseded by POLDP but I can't remember how reliable a source that was.

There's a group of lawyers who write about women's rights, Mairead Enright is one of them iirc, maybe their website/blog or whatever would have that information?

Here's one link that may be relevant (I haven't had a chance to read it yet) : https://londonirishfeministnetwork.wordpress.com/2014/10/05/mairead-enright-on-abortion-and-the-law-in-ireland-in-the-wake-of-the-case-of-miss-y/

Absolam

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act repealed the relevant provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act, and replaces them with the new offence. The POLDPA would still stand as the legislation which makes the destruction of unborn human life an offence, regardless of the abolition of the 8th Amendment, as the Act itself does not rely on the Constitution.