Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

gandalf

Sean.3516 wrote: »

New to the thread. Just wondering what people’s views were on the protests that took place outside a GP’s practice in Galway. Should they be able to do it?

My take on it is that they should have the right to stand there with their signs to the extent that they aren’t disrupting public order. They’re not being coercive or harrassing anyone. There just voicing opposition to an elective procedure they disagree with on a moral level. There’s nothing unruly about it.

Absolutely not. These people are scum, the only reason they are there is to intimidate and bully those who are attending the practice and those who work there. Harris needs to get legislation in place that outlaws this sort of crap immediately.

Annasopra

Sean.3516 wrote: »

New to the thread. Just wondering what people’s views were on the protests that took place outside a GP’s practice in Galway. Should they be able to do it?

My take on it is that they should have the right to stand there with their signs to the extent that they aren’t disrupting public order. They’re not being coercive or harrassing anyone. There just voicing opposition to an elective procedure they disagree with on a moral level. There’s nothing unruly about it.

They are harassing people entering the clinic. Minister Harris should legislate for exclusion zones ASAP.

sabat

eagle eye wrote: »

I avoided the campaigners, I had to vote to repeal the law that was in place. I had no idea that there was something as part of the vote to replace it.
A big error on my part.

The "debate" was deliberately staged in this manner to divide the electorate into two camps and obfuscate the true nature of what occurred in the referendum. You were either a baby murderer or a religious whackjob-the middle ground were harangued and marginalised and rational, systematic analysis of what was being voted on became impossible.
It's actually astonishing how little attention was paid to the new article in the constitution-I would guess that a large percentage of yes voters (maybe as much as half or more) weren't even aware of its existence.
To all those yes voters who are about to go through my post history and write something like "you lost, get over it" ask yourself this:
If a new government with an overall majority was elected tomorrow and decided to criminalise abortion what new "rights" gained in the referendum would prevent them from doing so?
If you asked 1000 yes voters whether women won the right to have an abortion in the referendum how many would agree?
If as you all concur abortion is a medical procedure then why does a specific medical procedure appear in a country's constitution? Is there any other example of this anywhere in the world? (Some mention general health rights but nothing like this.)
As soon as the pro-life groups organise their strategy properly and get some serious legal minds on the case I could see the new article being thrown out sharpish, whatever about repealing the 8th amendment.

Hotblack Desiato

You don't have a clue. A part of the constitution cannot be unconstitutional. The current article cannot be "thrown out".

Hotblack Desiato

Sean.3516 wrote: »

New to the thread. Just wondering what people’s views were on the protests that took place outside a GP’s practice in Galway. Should they be able to do it?

My take on it is that they should have the right to stand there with their signs to the extent that they aren’t disrupting public order. They’re not being coercive or harrassing anyone. There just voicing opposition to an elective procedure they disagree with on a moral level. There’s nothing unruly about it.

Didn't get the desired response on A&A so decided to start scuttering the exact same posts on here?

padd b1975

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

They are harassing people entering the clinic. Minister Harris should legislate for exclusion zones ASAP.

Any footage of this available?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

sabat wrote: »

The "debate" was deliberately staged in this manner to divide the electorate into two camps and obfuscate the true nature of what occurred in the referendum. You were either a baby murderer or a religious whackjob-the middle ground were harangued and marginalised and rational, systematic analysis of what was being voted on became impossible.
It's actually astonishing how little attention was paid to the new article in the constitution-I would guess that a large percentage of yes voters (maybe as much as half or more) weren't even aware of its existence.
To all those yes voters who are about to go through my post history and write something like "you lost, get over it" ask yourself this:
If a new government with an overall majority was elected tomorrow and decided to criminalise abortion what new "rights" gained in the referendum would prevent them from doing so?
If you asked 1000 yes voters whether women won the right to have an abortion in the referendum how many would agree?
If as you all concur abortion is a medical procedure then why does a specific medical procedure appear in a country's constitution? Is there any other example of this anywhere in the world? (Some mention general health rights but nothing like this.)
As soon as the pro-life groups organise their strategy properly and get some serious legal minds on the case I could see the new article being thrown out sharpish, whatever about repealing the 8th amendment.

There aren't any rights in the constitution to stop a government with a mandate to do so criminalizing abortion; as was discussed in these threads in the lead up to the referendum, Yes voters by and large were able to tell from the 30 year shítshow of the 8th being in place that the constitution was not the place for this issue. Go back through my posts, or any of the frequent yes posters, you'll see.

I agree that the constitution is not the place for a medical procedure, however back in the 80s Irish voters overwhelmingly decided to put one in there, at a time when abortion was already strictly prohibited by legislation. The referendum last year was a much belated and probably imperfect attempt to rectify that awful mistake, and unlike the wooly, badly worded 8th amendment this one leaves room for legislation to reflect the values of the voters if they change, without having to have another referendum. It's also worded so as not to lead to the headaches and complications for doctors, lawyers, judges, legislators etc that the 8th did.

Ideally yes, all of this could have happened without going near the constitution but that ship sailed 30 years ago.

Not really seeing the "gotcha" you seem to think you have there mate.

Deebles McBeebles

#1. Galway Edition (I'm assuming this will be a regular thing from here on)
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/anti-abortion-protesters-picket-gp-practice-in-galway-1.3747064

What are ye at lads? Is it just to shame any women using the clinic or is the end-game to get a second referendum?

orourkeda1977

People who didnt like the brexit result want a second referendum.

Why wouldnt people who dont like the abortion result seek a second referendum.

Its equally absurd. I voted no.

victor8600

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

People who didnt like the brexit result want a second referendum.

Why wouldnt people who dont like the abortion result seek a second referendum.

Its equally absurd. I voted no.

There is a difference between the Brexit result (51.9% for Leave) and the abortion referendum result (66.4% for allowing it). In the former case, a re-vote may actually change the outcome.

Mr. Incognito

I respect anyones views.

I disrespect anyone seeking to foist their views onto others.

Raheem Euro

Not very impressive, just seven die-hards.
A cold snap should see the back of them.

biko

The people had their chance and voted according to what they think is best (right or wrong according to anyone's personal opinion doesn't matter)

orourkeda1977

victor8600 wrote: »

There is a difference between the Brexit result (51.9% for Leave) and the abortion referendum result (66.4% for allowing it). In the former case, a re-vote may actually change the outcome.

51.9% was enough to win.

The margin was irrelevant

gctest50

Sheeeeeeeeeeet wrote: »

They're entitled to protest.

They got their vote n lost badly - they need to get over it

victor8600

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

What are ye at lads? ..

I think those must be some unemployed wasters. Don't they have a job to go to? Or kids to look after?

riffmongous

They should be allowed protest of course but I don't think directly outside a GP is appropriate in this case and they should be moved on

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: Merged

McMurphy

Dafuq is Willy Frazer doing (3rd from the right) campaigning against abortion clinics down here.

dudara

They’re impacting everyone who is going to visit that GP practice. They don’t know who is going in to access abortion services. Imagine going in for a regular check-up or prescriptions and having to deal with that sh*te.

seamus

Raheem Euro wrote: »

Not very impressive, just seven die-hards.
A cold snap should see the back of them.

I guarantee you at least half these pricks are American students in NUIG doing philosophy or "Celtic Studies" paid for by their church back home.

SusieBlue

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

People who didnt like the brexit result want a second referendum.

Why wouldnt people who dont like the abortion result seek a second referendum.

Its equally absurd. I voted no.

If they don't like it, they aren't obliged to have one, they aren't compulsory.

They need to leave the women and couples who are attending clinics to procure a legal, medical procedure alone (not to mention the other patients attending for non abortion services) and stop harassing them.
They should start lobbying their TD's about the legislation if they are truly passionate about their cause.

I don't think that's the case though, they just seem to be out to harass and intimidate vulnerable people and feel entitled to shove their self entitled, irrelevant opinions on others.

PopePalpatine

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Dafuq is Willy Frazer doing (3rd from the right) campaigning against abortion clinics down here.

There's no hard border obstructing any women from NI attending our clinics, that's why.

NuMarvel

eagle eye wrote: »

I thought it was just a vote to repeal the law that was in place. I didn't need to read anything to know that it had to go.

Did it not occur to to you that if you repeal an old law, then there would probably be a new one to replace it?

I can understand if you're opposed to the specifics of the new law, but I'm at a loss to understand how you thought that there would be no change after the referendum. Particularly when you seem to agree that there had to be some kind of change afterwards.

ELM327

NuMarvel wrote: »

Did it not occur to to you that if you repeal an old law, then there would probably be a new one to replace it?

I can understand if you're opposed to the specifics of the new law, but I'm at a loss to understand how you thought that there would be no change after the referendum. Particularly when you seem to agree that there had to be some kind of change afterwards.

And the intended legislation was published in national media before the election

eagle eye

NuMarvel wrote:

I can understand if you're opposed to the specifics of the new law, but I'm at a loss to understand how you thought that there would be no change after the referendum. Particularly when you seem to agree that there had to be some kind of change afterwards.

I did think there would be change but didn't think they'd insert something into the Constitution.

ELM327

eagle eye wrote: »

I did think there would be change but didn't think they'd insert something into the Constitution.

There is nothing in the constitution except what you directly approved with your vote and written on the ballot paper.
"The state will legislate..."

NuMarvel

eagle eye wrote: »

I did think there would be change but didn't think they'd insert something into the Constitution.

This is what was inserted into the Constitution:
“Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.”

What's wrong with that?

volchitsa

eagle eye wrote: »

I did think there would be change but didn't think they'd insert something into the Constitution.

All that was inserted this time is a clause saying that the government is entitled to legislate to allow abortion. That was made necessary precisely because of the legal precedents created over 35 years of a constitutional ban, not all of which will have been voided with the removal of 40.3.3.

Mr. CooL ICE

eagle eye wrote: »

I did think there would be change but didn't think they'd insert something into the Constitution.

I call bullsh1t on this. I simply cannot believe anybody who voted could have been this ignorant on the topic.

The Referendum Commission distributed a leaflet to every single home in the country outlining exactly what the referendum entailed. Here is the copy in PDF format. See page 5:

On 25th May 2018 you are being asked whether or not to delete the present Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution and replace it with a new Article.

The PRESENT Article 40.3.3:
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 subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state. This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

The PROPOSED new Article 40.3.3
Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.