Leo Varadkar announces abortion referendum

Persephone kindness

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/abortion-referendum-to-be-held-next-year-varadkar-says-1.3119981?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Foireachtas%2Fabortion-referendum-to-be-held-next-year-varadkar-says-1.3119981

It's to be held 2018.

I guess we could make this the general thread for it

Persephone kindness

He has stated previously he is pro-life. I don't know what form the ref will take. But it's to be pushed to be ready for next year. The issue of fetal abnormalities will be addressed by the govt.

I realize Leo is pro life. I hope he will be reasonably neutral though. I don't know if it is what pro choicers are looking for. But I hope it's at least open enough to allow some option within the first trimester. I have a feeling it will be restricted to problem pregnancies though.

Eyes Down Field

I would like abortion to be an option of Irish women as long as it's funded by the individual and not the tax payer, similar to laser eye surgery.

Persephone kindness

Eyes Down Field wrote: »

I would like abortion to be an option of Irish women as long as it's funded by the individual and not the tax payer, similar to laser eye surgery.

Wow ...that's pretty awesome thanks! :P
I was expecting much harsher!

JupiterKid

I'm not looking forward to the campaigns on both sides in the run up to the referendum. It will get ugly.

tomwaterford

You want a serious look at yourself if you vote againest abortion in cases where the baby wont live any length/be still born



(this is alot more common than people realise,have a friend what works in a shop what specilises in selling stuff for new borns~cribs prams etc)

Peregrinus

tomwaterford wrote: »

You want a serious look at yourself if you vote againest abortion in cases where the baby wont live any length/be still born

I don't think we've ever had a referendum in which people could vote against that. A wording referring to that case has never been put to the people.

pilly

Persephone kindness wrote:

He has stated previously he is pro-life. I don't know what form the ref will take. But it's to be pushed to be ready for next year. The issue of fetal abnormalities will be addressed by the govt.

I don't think it will be down to just him to decide the wording though will it?

seamus

pilly wrote: »

I don't think it will be down to just him to decide the wording though will it?

No, and Taoisigh basically never run things as a one-man show like this.

Whatever the wording, governments want to put forward referenda that will pass. A failed referendum is a black mark against a government.

So the wording will be something which aims to at least please the majority, even if it isn't everything they might want.

Realistically they should be aiming to completely lock it up. List the main concerns that will come up and then phrase it in such a way that eliminates those concerns.

That's what they did for the wording of the marriage equality amendment, and a result we have a clean and bulletproof article in the constitution which has no weird loopholes or unintended consequences.

touts

Predictions:
If he proposes to allow abortion in the case of Fatal Fetal Abnormality it will pass.

If he tacks on rape and incest as the media often do then it will fail narrowly with the turning point being some people who were conceived due to rape or incest go on the TV and radio and ask why they are not deemed worthy of existence just because of something their father did.

He will be the shortest lasting Taoiseach in history if he proposes abortion on demand.

It will be a dirty nasty campaign from both sides whatever the proposal.

Yourself isit

touts wrote: »

Predictions:
If he proposes to allow abortion in the case of Fatal Fetal Abnormality it will pass.

If he tacks on rape and incest as the media often do then it will fail narrowly with the turning point being some people who were conceived due to rape or incest go on the TV and radio and ask why they are not deemed worthy of existence just because of something their father did.

He will be the shortest lasting Taoiseach in history if he proposes abortion on demand.

It will be a dirty nasty campaign from both sides whatever the proposal.

I don't know. I think abortion on demand could pass. For the first trimester

touts

Yourself isit wrote: »

I don't know. I think abortion on demand could pass. For the first trimester

Won't even get out of the Dail but if it does it will have a slight majority in favour among those under 40 but a heavy majority against among the over 40s. That will be enough to defeat it. Might pass in about 10 years but not now.

Inquitus

touts wrote: »

Won't even get out of the Dail but if it does it will have a slight majority in favour among those under 40 but a heavy majority against among the over 40s. That will be enough to defeat it. Might pass in about 10 years but not now.

I disagree, I think we are now progressive enough to give woman rights over their own bodies and allow abortion on demand in the first trimester.

It'll be passed on fetal abnormalities for sure and rightly so.

The rest will follow in time.

touts

Inquitus wrote: »

I disagree, I think we are now progressive enough to give woman rights over their own bodies and allow abortion on demand in the first trimester.

That's the problem right there. The word progressive. It's passive aggressive name calling. "I"m better than you because I'm progressive". Now that's not to say the other side don't also have their tags. "Pro Life". As if someone in this is anti life. The campaigners on both sides will trade both open and passive aggressive insults and the general public will just wish the whole issue will go away.

flutered

pilly wrote: »

I don't think it will be down to just him to decide the wording though will it?

did he not give harris the job of coming up with the fine print when he kerpt him in health, a p[oisened chalice is called the health ministery, bur to add an abortion ref on top of that, makes the job unreal, as there are three sides to it, the pro, the anti and the special requirement sides

flutered

touts wrote: »

Predictions:
If he proposes to allow abortion in the case of Fatal Fetal Abnormality it will pass.

If he tacks on rape and incest as the media often do then it will fail narrowly with the turning point being some people who were conceived due to rape or incest go on the TV and radio and ask why they are not deemed worthy of existence just because of something their father did.

He will be the shortest lasting Taoiseach in history if he proposes abortion on demand.

It will be a dirty nasty campaign from both sides whatever the proposal.

you are correct, nasty it will be, in my pov it will be worse thnt nasty

Persephone kindness

touts wrote: »

Predictions:


He will be the shortest lasting Taoiseach in history if he proposes abortion on demand.

No he wouldn't. It's not that lots would be against it it's just not an issue people would feel strong enough on to bring a govt down. Not by a long shot.

Persephone kindness

It's either a ref to repeal totally. In which case nothing is in it's place or amend.

I would suspect it will be amended to define the unborn a later date of gestation and balance the right to health of the mother.

He said he was opposed to “unrestricted access to abortion in Ireland and effectively to abolishing the Eighth Amendment”.

Basically what the #repeal campaign wants a total repeal. That means nothing in it's place. In reality eventually abortion would be between a woman and her doctor with no regulation.

I doubt that will happen ...there are strengths to an amendment for pro choicer. If an amendment is written recognizing the woman's right to life and health and defining the unborn to later than conception it is in the constitution. And harder for legislators to make pro life legislation. Where as if it is totally repealed there is not a lot to stop govt less liberal in the future write pro life legislation.

Abortion simply in cases of rape or incest is impossible to actually do in the real world. And hypocritical. You could not establish rape. And bear in mind all girls under the age of 18 legally cannot consent ..they are automatically 'statutory rape victims'

All girls under the age of 18 would be able to get abortions if the partner was older lets say the girl was 16 and he was 19.
I suggest a time limit.

I think he will find you cannot discriminate between abortions within reason in the real world. And it's better to be clear. Even fetal abnormalities ..or if a woman gets cancer and needs treatment obv a pregnancy is a strain on her body.

I think there will be some option of choice in the first trimester. That will cover all rape incest.

Then after than it will be only in the case a life or death issue.


This was before the savita halappanavar case and a few year ago.Here is him saying in 20 yrs time abortion law will have to be diff here.

The unions are backing Claire Daly. The union are made up of 50% of women.

Women are more mobilized in societies in fractures now they have more power.

Persephone kindness

flutered wrote: »

you are correct, nasty it will be, in my pov it will be worse thnt nasty

Of course not. Sure all pro-lifers are with the best of intent. Difference does not have to breed conflict

wordofwarning

The thing is no one is entirely pro life or entirely pro-choice. People draw the line somewhere in the middle. Most pro-choice people don't believe in ultra late abortions. Likewise most pro-life people believe in some forms of abortions but not all.

I know people love to bring up Leo said about abortion in 2010. Therefore he is anti-choice. At the end of the day, he is not some thick TD. He is a fully qualified doctor who has put some thought into his reasonings of why disagrees with some forms of abortion. Not everyone can respect that though.

benjamin d

Allowing abortion in the case of rape is

1) completely unworkable - the child would likely be at school by the time a rape is categorically proven.

2) utterly repugnant, reprehensible, and the worst example of people desperate to find "middle ground". The religious wackos of Youth Defence and the Iona Institute et. al at least have a principled reason for their beliefs, nasty and all as they are.
Anyone who tries to convince you that allowing for abortion in cases of rape is ok but not allowing abortion as a decision between a woman and her doctor is at best someone who has given no thought whatsoever to the issue, or a complete idiot.

Persephone kindness

wordofwarning wrote: »

The thing is no one is entirely pro life or entirely pro-choice. People draw the line somewhere in the middle. Most pro-choice people don't believe in ultra late abortions. Likewise most pro-life people believe in some forms of abortions but not all.

I know people love to bring up Leo said about abortion in 2010. Therefore he is anti-choice. At the end of the day, he is not some thick TD. He is a fully qualified doctor who has put some thought into his reasonings of why disagrees with some forms of abortion. Not everyone can respect that though.

Of course.


Regarding late term abortions. These will always be highly controversial. And are very rare and even in the States only 7 states have no gestational age limit.

I would be in favor early gestational age limit perhaps 8 weeks for elected abortion. IN the states it is 21 -24 depending on the state and then 7 states with no gestational age limit.

Bear in mind now you will still have premature assisted delivery of non viable fetuses.These are often conflated with abortions or late term abortions. They are not abortions they are preterm births. And every assistance must be given to women for assisted premature births.



I would like to see us discuss the balance of right to health and life of women in medically complicated scenarios too though at all stages of pregnancy.

I would not be in favor of abortion with no gestational age limit.

I have no idea if what I would want will be similar to the shape the amendment will take.( I assume it is going to be an amendment.)

judeboy101

Yourself isit wrote: »

I don't know. I think abortion on demand could pass. For the first trimester

They'll roll out every special Olympics winner as an argument against that option

jimmycrackcorm

It will be very interesting to see what the format of the referendum question(s) will be.

What both sides will have to inevitably accept is that some sort of compromise will be needed.

PeterTheNinth

Eyes Down Field wrote: »

I would like abortion to be an option of Irish women as long as it's funded by the individual and not the tax payer, similar to laser eye surgery.

Yeah and if you look from a purely economical point of view, introducing abortion will probably save the State a fortune in benefits supporting unwanted children.

mikemac2

Persephone kindness wrote: »

And bear in mind all girls under the age of 18 legally cannot consent ..they are automatically 'statutory rape victims'

17

Persephone kindness

judeboy101 wrote: »

They'll roll out every special Olympics winner as an argument against that option

And we should let them and we can talk about it

17

Thank you

red ears

JupiterKid wrote: »

I'm not looking forward to the campaigns on both sides in the run up to the referendum. It will get ugly.

Im dreading having to listen to ronan mullen shout over people.

Peregrinus

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

Yeah and if you look from a purely economical point of view, introducing abortion will probably save the State a fortune in benefits supporting unwanted children.

Seriously? Fifty years ago pro-choice advocates in the US and the UK were arguing that the availablity of abortion would mean that "every child is a wanted child", that there would be reductions in the numbers of children in state care, in cases of child abuse and in other social problems. None of that came to pass, and it won't in Ireland either.

Peregrinus

Persephone kindness wrote: »

Abortion simply in cases of rape or incest is impossible to actually do in the real world. And hypocritical. You could not establish rape. And bear in mind all girls under the age of 18 legally cannot consent ..they are automatically 'statutory rape victims'

No, no, no. Never assume that the language used in American cop shows has any relevance to the situation in Ireland. We don't have "statutory rape" here, and under-17s are perfectly capable of legally consenting. If you're actually charged with the rape of an under-17 year old, it's a defence to show consent. However if you face the lesser charge of engaging in a sexual act with an under-17 year old, whether they consented or not is irrelevant.

BlinkingLights

It'll be interesting to see if the Taoiseach has some backbone on this issue and actually puts a genuine repeal question to the people and lets us decide!

I have a feeling he won't and it will just be a wishy-washy question to almost preserve the status quo and it will be dragged on for months before there's a date or wording.

Fr Tod Umptious

BlinkingLights wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see if the Taoiseach has some backbone on this issue and actually puts a genuine repeal question to the people and lets us decide!

I have a feeling he won't and it will just be a wishy-washy question to almost preserve the status quo and it will be dragged on for months before there's a date or wording.

What is "a genuine repeal question" ?

Abortion on demand ?

That certainly wouldn't pass.

Peregrinus

Well, a "genuine repeal question" might be simply to delete the Eighth Amendment and restore the Constititution to what it said prior to 1983, and then let the Oireachtas legislate on abortion. Or, replace the Eighth amendment with text which says that legislation on access to abortion is a matter for the Oireachtas.

An "abortion on demand" bill is unlikely to pass the Oireachtas.

benjamin d

The government will almost certainly conspire to word the referendum in such a way as to render it completely unsatisfactory to all sides, and lead to a high profile and drawn out court case within a year or two on the exact meaning of the outcome adopted.

BlinkingLights

I mean I would hope they don't put in some other constitutional limitation that takes this away from the Oireachtas for another 30 years.

They did this with the divorce referendum. We've ended up with a fairly sane divorce law with a 4 of 5 year delay before someone can actually get divorced which is rather patronising to put it mildly.

Irish society changed a lot since 1995 but that time limit, something that should be Oireachtas legislation, not the Constitution, requires an expensive and complicated referendum to amend.

The Constitution is a place for basic law, not mini acts of parliament.

Persephone kindness

Persephone kindness wrote: »

No he wouldn't. It's not that lots would be against it it's just not an issue people would feel strong enough on to bring a govt down. Not by a long shot.

Alas this poster is banned but it won't be the people who end this government, it'll be FF whenever they think they'll have the numbers to get back in.

oscarBravo

BlinkingLights wrote: »

The Constitution is a place for basic law, not mini acts of parliament.

This. I'm blue in the face saying it. I'll be campaigning for nothing short of full repeal.

Sesame

I agree with the citizens assembly 12 week abortion on demand recommendation.
12 weeks is nowhere near being a baby.
It gives the woman about 2 months from pregnancy discovery to make a decision.
There is also advances in healthcare which use a blood test to discover any chromosomal abnormalities at 9 weeks which can all be used to help make a decision. You don't have to wait for the 20 week scan any longer to discover it.

12 weeks is also a safer abortion than later for the woman.


On a different note, those that argue that an abortion for rape or incest is okay but not abortion on demand are misogynists.
They are saying the woman made a choice the have the sex, the resulting forced pregnancy is the punishment for doing the bold deed.
The resulting baby is a baby in both cases so wanting to protect the "baby" is not a valid argument. Its to punish the woman.

pilly

I think that whatever way it's worded there will have to be certainty around it.

Simply "Repeal the 8th" with no explanation of what will happen after that will be voted no because people on both sides of the argument don't like uncertainty and people undecided even more so.

A Primal Nut

The debate will have three sides.

One will be use "what about rape, what about fetal abnormalities, what about Savita?" argument as a way to justify abortion for everyone any time in the nine months period, while refusing to discuss the most common case for abortion: a simple unwanted, accidental pregnancy.

The vast majority will say they are ok with abortion in case of rape, incest, risk to the mother's life and maybe fetal abnormalities, but generally against it otherwise (some will be ok with it in the early stages of an unplanned pregnancy) but will be ignored by the media.

Then you'll have the religious right are against abortion in all cases and will be used to represent the pro-life side by the media.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Sesame wrote: »

I agree with the citizens assembly 12 week abortion on demand recommendation.
12 weeks is nowhere near being a baby.
It gives the woman about 2 months from pregnancy discovery to make a decision.
There is also advances in healthcare which use a blood test to discover any chromosomal abnormalities at 9 weeks which can all be used to help make a decision. You don't have to wait for the 20 week scan any longer to discover it.

12 weeks is also a safer abortion than later for the woman.


On a different note, those that argue that an abortion for rape or incest is okay but not abortion on demand are misogynists.
They are saying the woman made a choice the have the sex, the resulting forced pregnancy is the punishment for doing the bold deed.
The resulting baby is a baby in both cases so wanting to protect the "baby" is not a valid argument. Its to punish the woman.

This is without doubt the most sensible solution. I hope 12 weeks is what is put to referendum and hope it'll pass.

Ireland is way behind in its legislation of this area.

If there wasn't so many women going to the UK every year for an abortion it might make sense to keep it highly restricted here, but the way it is now seems so unnecessarily unfair and cruel to these women.

seamus

oscarBravo wrote: »

This. I'm blue in the face saying it. I'll be campaigning for nothing short of full repeal.

The recommendation which came out of the citizen's assembly was that the constitution should simply give the government the power to legislate on abortion.

That's exactly what a constitution should do and that's exactly what all of the Government's paid and unpaid legal experts will tell them is the right course of action.

If they don't heed this advice, then I will be voting No.

Putting in specifics like ages of gestation, words like "rape" or "FFA", or "suicide" will just lead to more decades of neverending challenges and counter-challenges as to what is constitutional.

1. Gestational age - According to whom? And do we measure from the date of conception or the date of ovulation? Who decides how old the fetus is, and how do they decide? What if someone presents at 11+3 for an abortion and it takes five days to get a "decision"?

2. Rape - well, is it only allowed for proven rapes, or alleged rapes? And so forth.

3. FFA - I cannot even begin to explain how much of a clusterf*c k we would have if the constitution were to explicitly allow abortion in the case of "fatal foetal abnormalities". No end of Ronan Mullen and his cronies dragging bereaved families into court to prove their unborn child qualified for an abortion.

4. Suicide - Well, we've been there already.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

BlinkingLights

My concern is the usual spinelessness of irish legislators will result in an attempt to legislate using the Constitution so they don't have to debate it.

oscarBravo

seamus wrote: »

If they don't heed this advice, then I will be voting No.

That's going to be a difficult call for me. If the proposed amendment - whatever form it takes - is defeated, it will be taken not as a signal that the people were unhappy with the wording of the amendment, but as an indication that the people want to keep the Constitution as it is.

The danger in voting for another crappy piece of legislation in the Constitution - like the divorce clause - is that it will be seen to settle the question for years to come. The danger in not voting for it is that that too will be seen to settle the question.

I'm hoping for, but not confident of, straight repeal. If the proposal instead is to water down, I'll have to carefully weigh the options.

seamus

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's going to be a difficult call for me. If the proposed amendment - whatever form it takes - is defeated, it will be taken not as a signal that the people were unhappy with the wording of the amendment, but as an indication that the people want to keep the Constitution as it is.

I do say it so absolutely, but that's only because I don't see any other option.

As far as I can tell the only real options are

1. Delete the section
2. Re-draft it to be more specific/permissive
3. Re-draft it to vest power in the Oireachtas

1 & 2 leave the matter wide open to challenge and argument for decades. Which IMO, leaves us no better off than doing nothing.
# 3 places the arguments into the Dail and removes the need for a referendum to "fix" every re-interpretation and loophole.

So I basically don't see any solution to this except # 3, but that said, the legal experts might come up with a secret option # 4 that actually works, and I'll have to think about it. But I personally don't see how they can.

pilly

Am I right though in saying simply "repeal the 8th" as an option will not actually change things? That legislation will have to be brought in after that?

seamus

pilly wrote: »

Am I right though in saying simply "repeal the 8th" as an option will not actually change things? That legislation will have to be brought in after that?

In theory, simply deleting the article means that the government can then legislate for abortion, and most people will be happy.

However, the constitution contains many articles whose scope can be interpreted in many terms.

With no mention of abortion in the constitution, someone could challenge abortion laws on the basis that they violate another part of the constitution.

Article 42A, for example;

The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.

If the Supreme Court were to agree that "children" includes the unborn, then any abortion law would be unconstitutional.

However, by explicitly stating that the government has the power to legislate around abortion, the interpretation of other articles is irrelevant.

pilly

seamus wrote: »

In theory, simply deleting the article means that the government can then legislate for abortion, and most people will be happy.

However, the constitution contains many articles whose scope can be interpreted in many terms.

With no mention of abortion in the constitution, someone could challenge abortion laws on the basis that they violate another part of the constitution.

Article 42A, for example;If the Supreme Court were to agree that "children" includes the unborn, then any abortion law would be unconstitutional.

However, by explicitly stating that the government has the power to legislate around abortion, the interpretation of other articles is irrelevant.

Thanks for that, easy to understand summary. That's the kind of information we need.

Sesame

Something which I found interesting is how abortion and the laws around it are woven into many current laws.

For instance, I found this when researching the censorship office on another matter. Its taken from http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/media/censorship_of_publications_in_ireland.html

Grounds for banning a books or periodicals in Ireland

Books are prohibited if the Censorship of Publications Board considers them to be indecent or obscene. Periodicals are prohibited if the Censorship of Publications Board considers them to be frequently or usually indecent or obscene. Both books and periodicals may be prohibited if the Board considers that they advocate abortion or ways of carrying out abortions. Periodicals may also be prohibited if the Board is of the opinion that they have given an unduly large proportion of space to matters relating to crime. In practice, however, publications are usually only reported to the Board for obscenity. The Board will measure the literary, scientific or historical merit of the publication. It will take note of its general tenor, the language in which it is written, its likely circulation and readers and anything else it feels is relevant. It may take into account any communication with the author, editor or publisher.

You know you can publish books about how to make bombs, or ways to kill yourself or others, or odd sexual fantasies or whatever. But the law explicitly makes it clear that a book may not advocate abortion. How messed up is that?