What kind of abortion legislation ought we expect?

antiskeptic

The RTE exit poll suggests that only 52% of voters on all sides are in favour of abortion on demand. 73% on all sides are in favour of legislation to deal with "hard cases"

Given margins for error, we could be looking at a 50/50 split on the subject of abortion on demand.


What does this mean for the shape of forthcoming legislation on the matter? All we've done is vote to repeal the 8th afterall.

Are we straight back into campaigning on both sides?

Does this mean some kind of restrictions on abortion up to 12 weeks?

Given this is only an exit poll, do we need another referendum to ascertain the actual split among the electorate. Or how else is the national view obtained?

Conservatory

We should have a vote on the final draft and we should not have the church or Iona anywhere near it.
I voted no out of fear of abortion on demand but Im happy enough it passed but with enough no votes to tell the government not to take the pee.

I would have voted yes if there was safeguard in the wording to promise another vote.

It’d be the easy lazy option for the tds to say ah feck it let everyone do what they want but I honestly don’t think more than 50 per cent of people want that.

antiskeptic

Conservatory wrote: »

We should have a vote on the final draft and we should not have the church or Iona anywhere near it.

It's a democracy. Anyone can lobby in anyway they see fit.

I voted no out of fear of abortion on demand but Im happy enough it passed but with enough no votes to tell the government not to take the pee.

A 50/50 split on the matter of abortion on request must be about as unwelcome a result as is possible for the government to have had, bar a clear majority for no abortion on request.

They now have no mandate to legislate for anything but the Trojan Horse inside which abortion on demand was concealed.

Difficult cases represent a tiny minority of all possible cases of abortion.

It’d be the easy lazy option for the tds to say ah feck it let everyone do what they want but I honestly don’t think more than 50 per cent of people want that.

I'm just wondering what happens next. What do you do when you've no mandate?

salmocab

People voted to repeal, to the govts credit they released what they intend to replace it with, those exit polls mean nothing the legislation that comes in will be very close to what they released and rightly so.

antiskeptic

salmocab wrote: »

People voted to repeal, to the govts credit they released what they intend to replace it with, those exit polls mean nothing the legislation that comes in will be very close to what they released and rightly so.

Were it that simple. Whilst polls mean nothing, exit polls are pretty accurate. How accurate we will soon find out.

You suddenly don't seem so eager that the will of the people be expressed.

Some democrat!

Remember too, the government would like to get reelected. Are we to suppose that they would simply ignore the express wishes of 50% of the electorate on a matter as seismic as this?

All people voted for was repeal and allow the government to legislate. At least, that's all that was written on the top of my polling paper

drunkmonkey

I think you can expect them to try and rush it through as is, that seems to be the feeling I'm getting in the media today, if it's not done by their summer holidays there's the risk it turns into a political football in the run up to the general election.
The exit polls suggest what's proposed isn't what people want.

salmocab

antiskeptic wrote: »

Were it that simple. Whilst polls mean nothing, exit polls are pretty accurate. How accurate we will soon find out.

You suddenly don't seem so eager that the will of the people be expressed.

Some democrat!

Utter nonsense the people new what they were voting on and made their choice, the govt can’t row back on that now based on exit polls.

FreudianSlippers

The Government have stated prior to the referendum what they propose the legislation will be; they have confirmed that they intend to deliver that legislation.

/thread

alchemist33

The government made it very clear what they were going to if there was a Yes vote. If people didn't want that they should have voted No and let this or another government go again with different proposals.
But the only vote that counts is the one being counnnted now and thats a big Yes. That's the governments mandate to legislate as they said they would.

salmocab

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I think you can expect them to try and rush it through as is, that seems to be the feeling I'm getting in the media today, if it's not done by their summer holidays there's the risk it turns into a political football in the run up to the general election.
The exit polls suggest what's proposed isn't what people want.

Simon Harris said today that his dept will write up the legislation over the summer and he hopes to have it before cabinet in the autumn.

antiskeptic

salmocab wrote: »

People voted to repeal, to the govts credit they released what they intend to replace it with.

Credit? You're kidding surely.

The government released details before hand because they had to. If they simply said repeal with a blank they'd either have lost the vote (because people would be voting in a vaccum). Or they'd have had a riot when they landed a.o.r on a public who had no idea what they were voting for.

BoJack Horseman

The government have already set out their likely legislation.

In a nutshell:
- Up to 12 weeks..... no reason needed.
- 12 - 24 weeks (or viability)..... reason needed.

Presumably that odd caveat from a few years ago where women who say they are suicidal will be still allowed to terminate without term limit.

salmocab

antiskeptic wrote: »

Credit? You're kidding surely.

The government released details before hand because they had to. If they simply said repeal with a blank they'd either have lost the vote (because people would be voting in a vaccum). Or they'd have had a riot when they landed a.o.r on a public who had no idea what they were voting for.

They gave details of what they would bring in, didn’t fudge the big issue on the 12 weeks. So yeah I do give them credit for it.

antiskeptic

salmocab wrote: »

Utter nonsense the people new what they were voting on and made their choice, the govt can’t row back on that now based on exit polls.

The people, it would seem, voted for repeal because they thought no-repeal worse. That doesn't mean a vote for the legislation.

It can't be circumvented: if an exit poll gives an accurate reading of the actual poll then it can be said to give an accurate breakdown of the problem people had with YES (even if that problem wasn't as big as the problem with retaining the 8th)

Look at it from the governments pov. They have reason to suspect they have no mandate for their legislation. And they want to get reelected.

drunkmonkey

The made it clear alright, Leo coming out telling women to expect 14yrs in Jail if they didn't vote yes.

Marry Lou needs and Ard Fheis and Micheal Martin is facing a backlash, it's not as simple as it looks to rush this through.

drunkmonkey

salmocab wrote: »

Simon Harris said today that his dept will write up the legislation over the summer and he hopes to have it before cabinet in the autumn.

In the run up to a general election? That should be entertaining. If true they won't have this in place by the time of the election.

antiskeptic

salmocab wrote: »

They gave details of what they would bring in, didn’t fudge the big issue on the 12 weeks. So yeah I do give them credit for it.

If they fudged it they couldn't have then introduced it without a civil war. Imagine trying to equivocate on your tax rates, then introduce 60% tax after you get a vote?

You really think politicians do this kind of thing for the good of the people?

salmocab

antiskeptic wrote: »

If they fudged it they couldn't have then introduced it without a civil war. Imagine trying to equivocate on your tax rates, then introduce 60% tax after you get a vote?

You really think politicians do this kind of thing for the good of the people?

I don’t think politicians do anything just for the good of the people they are in the main in it for themselves, in this case they released details of what they would do if the yes won and people voted on it. I’m happy they will try to enact legislation close to what they brought to the people and that it will succeed. If your not happy with it contact your local TD.

Call me Al

antiskeptic wrote: »

The people, it would seem, voted for repeal because they thought no-repeal worse. That doesn't mean a vote for the legislation.

It can't be circumvented: if an exit poll gives an accurate reading of the actual poll then it can be said to give an accurate breakdown of the problem people had with YES (even if that problem wasn't as big as the problem with retaining the 8th)

Look at it from the governments pov. They have reason to suspect they have no mandate for their legislation. And they want to get reelected.

The government were very clear about the legislation proposed and what a yes vote would bring about. It was debated at length officially and unofficially throughout the media and the electorate have voted over 2:1 to support these proposals.
So no... the government must now fulfil their part if the agreement and do what they said they would or face the consequences of democracy. Just like we saw this morning's events unfold.

Pro-life groups cannot now get to manipulate the narrative by changing tactics. They have been comprehensively rejected.

antiskeptic

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The Government have stated prior to the referendum what they propose the legislation will be; they have confirmed that they intend to deliver that legislation.

/thread

Confirmed. Are you saying that a government promise ought to be taken as a promise fulfilled?

Would a government facing an election ignore an accurate indication that they haven't a mandate to introduce abortion on demand?

I'm hearing folk sticking their fingers in their ears here - supposing a government promise / desire to be converted into final result.

Since it's the Politics forum, I'm wondering whether a certain pragmatism won't come into play in government / other party think?

antiskeptic

Call me Al wrote: »

The government were very clear about the legislation proposed and what a yes vote would bring about. It was debated at length officially and unofficially throughout the media and the electorate have voted over 2:1 to support these proposals.

I'm afraid you can only take what the electorate voted on. Repeal + permission to legislate. That's all the voting slip said

Outside the voting slip, the electorate has stated where the line lies for them - that they weren't asked to vote on that narrower nuance isn't their fault. The fact is, the view has been expressed.

And how might the government react to that.

So no... the government must now fulfil their part if the agreement and do what they said they would or face the consequences of democracy. Just like we saw this morning's events unfold.

The government can do precisely as I've done: point to the wording on the voting slip. And consider ways to wiggle out of the problem of a 50/50 split.

Pro-life groups cannot now get to manipulate the narrative by changing tactics. They have been comprehensively rejected.

Whatever about pro-life, the only thing rejected was the 8th.

antiskeptic

salmocab wrote: »

I don’t think politicians do anything just for the good of the people they are in the main in it for themselves, in this case they released details of what they would do if the yes won and people voted on it. I’m happy they will try to enact legislation close to what they brought to the people and that it will succeed. If your not happy with it contact your local TD.

Would you suppose a campaign not to legislate for abortion on request might be instigated?

You have on board the No campaign. You have on board the No. TD's.

And you have a government looking down the barrel of an election

I know what they said they'd do. But that's irrelevant to the question of what you think they might do, given an even split in the electorate.

salmocab

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would you suppose a campaign not to legislate for abortion on request might be instigated?

You have on board the No campaign. You have on board the No. TD's.

And you have a government looking down the barrel of an election

I know what they said they'd do. But that's irrelevant to the question of what you think they might do, given an even split in the electorate.

I think they will bring forward what they said they will, if they don’t they will get crucified at the election you think is coming.

FreudianSlippers

antiskeptic wrote: »

Confirmed. Are you saying that a government promise ought to be taken as a promise fulfilled?

Would a government facing an election ignore an accurate indication that they haven't a mandate to introduce abortion on demand?

I'm hearing folk sticking their fingers in their ears here - supposing a government promise / desire to be converted into final result.

Since it's the Politics forum, I'm wondering whether a certain pragmatism won't come into play in government / other party think?

The Government have a mandate for "abortion on demand" up to 12 weeks. It's what was indicated prior to the referendum - I'm sorry for you that you're so unhappy with the result... build a bridge, but stop spouting nonsense that this isn't what was intended.

antiskeptic

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The Government have a mandate for "abortion on demand" up to 12 weeks. It's what was indicated prior to the referendum - I'm sorry for you that you're so unhappy with the result... build a bridge, but stop spouting nonsense that this isn't what was intended.

The government have a technical mandate. The 8th was repealed and they can now legislate. Furthermore, they have advertised the legislation they pose to introduce should they get that technical mandate.

The government however, have the issue of an electorate which is split on the question of abortion on request. That's a reality that sits alongside the fact that they can legislate as advertised.

Do they simply ignore that split, because of their technical mandate? Bearing in mind that there's an election coming. Or might they be expected to try to please as many people as they can in order to obtain votes come election time.

Which do you suppose more important. Legislating as advertised or getting reelected?

oscarBravo

Conservatory wrote: »

We should have a vote on the final draft...

No, we shouldn't. We need to get over this crap of "we should have a referendum on every topic I personally feel strongly about".

We had to have a referendum to remove the abomination that was 40.3.3 from the Constitution, but now that we've voted to remove it, legislation moves to where it belongs: the Oireachtas.

I get that the pro-lifers still want to believe that Ireland doesn't want abortion, but I guess some people just won't take "yes" for an answer.

Spanish Eyes

Abortion on demand/request will be available to women by ordering pills anyway. I don't see how changing the Heads of the Bill to re run the whole sorry mess will change that.

I actually don't believe the electorate want any more of this. Legislate as outlined, and move on.

FreudianSlippers

antiskeptic wrote: »

The government have a technical mandate. The 8th was repealed and they can now legislate. Furthermore, they have advertised the legislation they pose to introduce should they get that technical mandate.

The government however, have the issue of an electorate which is split on the question of abortion on request. That's a reality that sits alongside the fact that they can legislate as advertised.

Do they simply ignore that split, because of their technical mandate? Bearing in mind that there's an election coming. Or might they be expected to try to please as many people as they can in order to obtain votes come election time.

Which do you suppose more important. Legislating as advertised or getting reelected?

I'm not sure what a "technical mandate" is.

There is very little evidence that proceeding with "abortion on demand" up to 12 weeks would have any impact on this theoretical election that you've dreamed up because you're grumpy that you didn't keep Ireland in the grip of the Catholic church.

Call me Al

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm afraid you can only take what the electorate voted on. Repeal + permission to legislate. That's all the voting slip said

Outside the voting slip, the electorate has stated where the line lies for them - that they weren't asked to vote on that narrower nuance isn't their fault. The fact is, the view has been expressed.

And how might the government react to that.





The government can do precisely as I've done: point to the wording on the voting slip. And consider ways to wiggle out of the problem of a 50/50 split.



Whatever about pro-life, the only thing rejected was the 8th.

I get that you're not happy with the way this has gone.
But you don't seem to understand. It's over. There is zero appetite within the majority of the country to drag this out further. I will grant that the 30 % no's will try to drag the whole thing out. But they are the only ones who will be wiggling trying to manipulate. The government can simply shrug their shoulders and point to the result. This is their mandate.

Because as I said already pro-life groups cannot now get to manipulate the narrative by changing tactics. They have been comprehensively rejected.

KevinCavan

Wholesale abortion for whoever wants it for first three months of pregnancy.

FreudianSlippers

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, we shouldn't. We need to get over this crap of "we should have a referendum on every topic I personally feel strongly about".

We had to have a referendum to remove the abomination that was 40.3.3 from the Constitution, but now that we've voted to remove it, legislation moves to where it belongs: the Oireachtas.

I get that the pro-lifers still want to believe that Ireland doesn't want abortion, but I guess some people just won't take "yes" for an answer.

Luckily, we have never had a referendum on non-Constitutional legislation and we are unlikely to ever hold one. The "logic" coming from the anti-choice posters indicating otherwise is fantasy nonsense that shouldn't be entertained in this forum or anywhere.