Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

Why would her health always be prioritized, if both have equal rights?

it will be prioritized where it is required to be. she won't be prioritized because she wants an abortion for contraceptive, lifestyle and convenience reasons however.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

it will be prioritized where it is required to be. she won't be prioritized because she wants an abortion for contraceptive, lifestyle and convenience reasons however.

i asked why though. Not for some examples of when.

I mean, if both are genuinely equal? Shouldnt one have to consider in each instance which of the two lives should or can be saved, and not always save the mother?

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

it will be prioritized where it is required to be.

"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."

There is nothing in the 8th that could be interpreted as allowing abortion when a woman's health, as opposed to her life, is at risk.

If you want to allow a woman to access abortion when her health is at risk, then you need to vote for repeal. It really is as simple as that.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

"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."

There is nothing in the 8th that could be interpreted as allowing abortion when a woman's health, as opposed to her life, is at risk.

If you want to allow a woman to access abortion when her health is at risk, then you need to vote for repeal. It really is as simple as that.

the currently existing law might allow it also, hence i won't be voting for repeal. i don't think the government have looked at it, they should do this before having a referendum on removing equality legislation.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

and i explained to you across multiple threads that they couldn't be implamented as they would effect the innocent pregnant women who would not be traveling to procure abortion. when a law is implamented, it must only go after the guilty and the suspected. this must be done, as much as is possible, without effecting innocent people going about their daily business

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

the currently existing law might allow it also, hence i won't be voting for repeal. i don't think the government have looked at it

...and what, you are carefully avoiding reading the reports of the Citizen's Assembly and Oireachteas Committee so you don't find out you are wrong?

blanch152

end of the road wrote: »

and thankfully a rebalancing of rights isn't required, as the unborn's right to life is only equal to the mother. that changes where the mother's life or health is at risk, and in that situation the mother will be prioritized.

A mother has no rights when her health, as opposed to her life, is at risk. You really don't understand the constitutional amendment.

There is a requirement for the rebalancing of rights over time. Such has happened throughout history. At one time, women did not have the right to vote. That right was rebalanced a century ago.

When society changes and evolves, the rebalancing of rights becomes an issue as in this case.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

the currently existing law might allow it also, hence i won't be voting for repeal. i don't think the government have looked at it, they should do this before having a referendum on removing equality legislation.

So you know better than the Supreme Court which found the exact opposite in the X case, and that has never been challenged?

They should really ask you to write the required law then, shouldn't they?

end of the road wrote: »

and i explained to you across multiple threads that they couldn't be implamented as they would effect the innocent pregnant women who would not be traveling to procure abortion. when a law is implamented, it must only go after the guilty and the suspected. this must be done, as much as is possible, without effecting innocent people going about their daily business

So no innocent people have ever been questioned in possible murder cases, right?

You know the saying about people not being entitled to their own facts, right?

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

the currently existing law might allow it also, hence i won't be voting for repeal. i don't think the government have looked at it, they should do this before having a referendum on removing equality legislation.

As I've said, there is nothing in the 8th that could be construed as allowing access to abortion on health grounds for the woman. It doesn't even allow abortion where there's an FFA, so there's no reason for believing other grounds would be possible.

But if you're so confident that it does, then cite your sources. What case law or other parts of the constitution lead to you to believe that abortion on health grounds would be possible under the 8th?

end of the road

blanch152 wrote: »

A mother has no rights when her health, as opposed to her life, is at risk. You really don't understand the constitutional amendment.

There is a requirement for the rebalancing of rights over time. Such has happened throughout history. At one time, women did not have the right to vote. That right was rebalanced a century ago.

When society changes and evolves, the rebalancing of rights becomes an issue as in this case.

there is no requirement for a rebalancing of rights to allow the killing of the unborn for lifestyle, contraceptive and convenience reasons. only medical necessity requires abortion, and as a last resort.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

i'm saying that as reprehensible as it is, we cannot stop people from going abroad to kill other human beings in a country where such is legal. it's very simple.

It is not simple at all. Surely you know that technically abortion is still illegal in the UK under certain circumstances.

YOU want to discriminate against poor women, migrants and people in violent relationships by preventing them access to medical care. It is that simple.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

it's nothing to do with those voters losing. even if they had won it wouldn't be legally viable long term to stop people traveling to commit acts that are legal in other countries.

Nah. You just know that an amendment to repeal the 13th amendment would be deeply unpopular and lost by a landslide. It is about that.

Annasopra

volchitsa wrote: »

You know the saying about people not being entitled to their own facts, right?

EOTRs alternative facts?

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

there is no requirement for a rebalancing of rights to allow the killing of the unborn for lifestyle, contraceptive and convenience reasons. only medical necessity requires abortion, and as a last resort.

You are not answering the question put to you

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It is not simple at all. Surely you know that technically abortion is still illegal in the UK under certain circumstances.

YOU want to discriminate against poor women, migrants and people in violent relationships by preventing them access to medical care. It is that simple.

nobody is being prevented access to medical care. there is quite the amount of medical care in ireland. people are being prevented from killing unborn human beings in ireland however, which is not medical care.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You are not answering the question put to you

i did answer it.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

i did answer it.

No you didnt. I asked why the mother's right should have priority if the two are actually equal, and you responded with some examples of when you thought it would be fair enough to prioritize the mother's rights over the fetus'.

Which was not an answer to my question.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

nobody is being prevented access to medical care. there is quite the amount of medical care in ireland.

Clearly you haven't heard of what Michelle Harte went through a few years ago - https://www.irishtimes.com/news/state-settled-with-cancer-patient-1.555035.

In 2010, after she became unintentionally pregnant while suffering from a malignant melanoma, doctors at Cork University Hospital advised her to terminate her pregnancy because of the risk to her health.

Mr Boylan said her obstetrician was willing to perform a termination but was “hamstrung” by legal issues. The issue was referred to the hospital’s “ad hoc” ethics committee.

...

“I couldn’t believe the decision [to refuse an abortion in Ireland] when it came,” Ms Harte, who was then 39, told The Irish Times in December 2010. “Apparently my life wasn’t at immediate risk. It just seemed absolutely ridiculous.”

Her condition worsened significantly during this time and she was not able to receive cancer treatment because she was pregnant. She eventually travelled to Britain for an abortion; she had to be helped on to the aircraft due to a deterioration in her condition.

Ms Harte subsequently died by the way. But please, continue to tell us that the 8th doesn't put anyone's lives or health at risk.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

i did answer it.

Nonsense. You merely switched on your repeat mantra button

You did not answer this question

But if you're so confident that it does, then cite your sources. What case law or other parts of the constitution lead to you to believe that abortion on health grounds would be possible under the 8th?

You did not provide any sources or case law as requested

recedite

NuMarvel wrote: »

Clearly you haven't heard of what Michelle Harte went through a few years ago - https://www.irishtimes.com/news/state-settled-with-cancer-patient-1.555035.



Ms Harte subsequently died by the way. But please, continue to tell us that the 8th doesn't put anyone's lives or health at risk.

She could have been provided with an abortion in Ireland under the 8th amendment if her life was at risk.
The particular doctor/and/or his insurers did not want to get involved due to a lack of specific legislation around it, which was remedied in 2013. The PLP legislation was introduced at the insistence of the ECHR, and mirrored the existing constitutional position.

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

She could have been provided with an abortion in Ireland under the 8th amendment if her life was at risk.
The particular doctor/and/or his insurers did not want to get involved due to a lack of specific legislation around it, which was remedied in 2013. The PLP legislation was introduced at the insistence of the ECHR, and mirrored the existing constitutional position.

This actually proves my point. Because her life wasn't at risk at the time, she was denied an abortion AND cancer treatment. The life of the unborn took precedence over her health, and therefore she was denied the necessary medical care. Which contradicts what EOTR said about the 8th not denying women medical care.

This was the constitutional position at the time and, as you've said, the PLDP Act mirrors that position, so this would be the case today.

Zubeneschamali

recedite wrote: »

She could have been provided with an abortion in Ireland under the 8th amendment if her life was at risk.

Yes, and the same was true for Savita Hallapanavar. The problem is that the medical team have to decide when the patient crosses the invisible line from "Health at risk" (no abortion) to "Life at Risk" (abortion).

If they get it wrong one way, as with Ms. Harte or Ms. Hallapanavar, the patient dies. If they get it wrong the other way, they break the law and are looking at 14 years in jail.

And before you answer that no-one has been or will be prosecuted under that law, two points: Firstly, if we have no intention of enforcing that law we should own that decision and repeal it. That means repealing the 8th to which it gives effect and we are all on the same side.

Secondly if (as seems likely to me) the PLDPA is a fake law and the AG has no intention of ever actually using it to defend or vindicate the right to life of the unborn, it has a chilling effect as long as it is on the books.

No hospital can have a policy which breaks that law. No practitioner can say out loud: "This woman needs an abortion or she'll end up in a wheelchair!". We all know from the case of Savita that even a casual comment by a nurse (This is a Catholic country) can be used in a court case later. It's an absolute legal minefield for doctors to navigate, with their job and medical license on the line for violating written policy even if the threat to their freedom is theoretical.

volchitsa

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, and the same was true for Savita Hallapanavar. The problem is that the medical team have to decide when the patient crosses the invisible line from "Health at risk" (no abortion) to "Life at Risk" (abortion).

If they get it wrong one way, as with Ms. Harte or Ms. Hallapanavar, the patient dies. If they get it wrong the other way, they break the law and are looking at 14 years in jail.

And before you answer that no-one has been or will be prosecuted under that law, two points: Firstly, if we have no intention of enforcing that law we should own that decision and repeal it. That means repealing the 8th to which it gives effect and we are all on the same side.

Secondly if (as seems likely to me) the PLDPA is a fake law and the AG has no intention of ever actually using it to defend or vindicate the right to life of the unborn, it has a chilling effect as long as it is on the books.

No hospital can have a policy which breaks that law. No practitioner can say out loud: "This woman needs an abortion or she'll end up in a wheelchair!". We all know from the case of Savita that even a casual comment by a nurse (This is a Catholic country) can be used in a court case later. It's an absolute legal minefield for doctors to navigate, with their job and medical license on the line for violating written policy even if the threat to their freedom is theoretical.

One of the problems the doctors in the Michelle Harte case had was that she was terminally ill, so "No point in us saving your life with an abortion, Ms Harte, sure you're a goner anyway."

I'm sure they didnt put it so brutally, but that was the problem : an abortion could have extended her life by several months, perhaps by years, but the pregnancy was not what was killing her (only hastening her death) and an abortion would not cure her.

Horrendous as that seems to me, it's the law. Her health is not a factor. And POLDP has not changed that at all.

blanch152

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0307/945560-supreme-court-rights-of-unborn/


"The Supreme Court in Limerick has ruled that the unborn does not have inherent Constitutional rights outside the right to life in the Eighth Amendment."

Would be very interested in seeing the details of this decision. Certainly creates a distinction between the born and the unborn.

Zubeneschamali

blanch152 wrote: »

Certainly creates a distinction between the born and the unborn.

This simply maintains the status quo where the unborn is a non-person.

It was the High Court judgement which threatened to create a bunch of new law, which has now been unanimously rejected by the SC.

Itssoeasy

Does the ruling by the Supreme Court not embolden the side of this debate that want to keep the 8th ammendment ? It can now say that the only protection to the unborn is article 40.3.3 and the Supreme Court have said that the unborn has no inherent rights outside of article 40.3.3 and it must be protected ?

I know this ruling does start the process of the refurendum but I think it may have unintended consequences that will embolden the keep the 8th ammendment side. I'll be listening to the radio to see if I'm right or if I've pulled that conclusion out of my arse.

Btw I'm an undecided in this upcoming referendum as I stated months ago on this thread. I wrote this post asking that question simply because it came to me first. I'm sure the repealthe8th side could easily state that this ruling favours them.

Zubeneschamali

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I think it may have unintended consequences that will embolden the keep the 8th ammendment side.

"Embolden them"?

I haven't noticed them being particularly shy and retiring for the last 35 years.

Itssoeasy

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I think it may have unintended consequences that will embolden the keep the 8th ammendment side.

"Embolden them"?

I haven't noticed them being particularly shy and retiring for the last 35 years.

Embolden them in the sense that it distiles the issue down to article 40.3.3 ?

Zubeneschamali

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Embolden them in the sense that it distiles the issue down to article 40.3.3 ?

That's where it always was since 1983.

There was some talk that IF the SC agreed with the High court THEN there could be implications blah blah, but that was all a big IF.

And now we know that the IF did not come to pass. We are simply back where we were, the SC decided nothing new.

recedite

NuMarvel wrote: »

This actually proves my point. Because her life wasn't at risk at the time, she was denied an abortion AND cancer treatment.

I don't think either of us knows the medical details of this, and anyway it is not very nice to discuss a personal tragedy in this way, unless some good for others can come of it. From your link it seems the unborn child was killed, and then subsequently the mother died anyway, so it was a double tragedy in the end. The abortion did not save the mother.

No doubt your implication is that an earlier abortion could have saved her. Yet you also say that her life was not at risk at the time. Another poster here puts it more bluntly; that she was "a goner anyway". I have no idea about that, and no comment.

I simply say that if her life was at risk, and having an abortion could have saved it, then it should have been performed without delay in Ireland. And the same goes for the Savita case.

The fact that the families in both cases received substantial cash settlements indicates to me a de facto admission of guilt in the way these women were treated/mistreated in state hospitals.

So no, it does not prove your point.

Zubeneschamali

recedite wrote: »

it is not very nice to discuss a personal tragedy in this way, unless some good for others can come of it.

Exactly - we repeal the 8th and this tragedy never happens again.