What kind of abortion legislation ought we expect?

ELM327

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's never too late for a legal challenge. Not even after the introduction of the law. For if the basis on which the law was introduced is found faulty, then too the law which rests upon it



If it was found that the referendum was skewed in favour of a YES, the 2:1 wouldn't matter a darn.

Do you know what foundations are? And do you know what pyrite does to foundations and the structure above?

It's done.
Move on.
The foundations and the structure and everything else of the no side was obliterated last friday. McGuirk, Steen, Sherlock, Toibin et al were decimated in the ballot box. You could have included the entire orange order from the north and still lost.


It's done.
A more productive use of the time on the no side would be to self analyse why you lost. Scaremongering and lies and emotive language and shock tactics on posters don't wash with the Irish public in 2018.

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Utterly irrelevant to the legal standing of the result. You can read about referenda in the Constitution itself, article 46 and 47.

"The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen."

If one has a personal right to be adequately represented. Could it be that the referendum pass but the laws deriving from that referendum cannot be invoked?

Anyway. One to watch.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could it be that the referendum pass but the laws deriving from that referendum cannot be invoked?

No.

This has been another edition of simple answers to desperate questions.

robarmstrong

ELM327 wrote: »

It's done.
A more productive use of the time on the no side would be to self analyse why you lost. Scaremongering and lies and emotive language and shock tactics on posters don't wash with the Irish public in 2018.

Or focus all of their "compassion" on helping the born children that are homeless or in need rather than going to the wall over menial things now.

ELM327

The weather was too nice on polling day, can we re-run the election?


The rest of the country is invalid as they have too many home to vote. We want to re-run the referendum only in donegal.

davedanon

robarmstrong wrote: »

Or focus all of their "compassion" on helping the born children that are homeless or in need rather than going to the wall over menial things now.

Oh, I think we all know their attitude on that score.

They mostly care about notional children. Not live or dead ones.

Zubeneschamali

ELM327 wrote: »

The rest of the country is invalid as they have too many home to vote. We want to re-run the referendum only in donegal.

Turns out that Donegal the county voted Yes.

The bit of the county which makes up Donegal the constituency is missing 2 of its top 10 towns, ceded to Sligo/Leitrim to balance the numbers.

antiskeptic

davedanon wrote: »

You're really having a hard time accepting defeat, aren't you?

Ironically, not as bad as I thought it would be. There is a certain amount of shrugging of the shoulders and let folk reap whatever it is they wish to sow.


Anyone like to have a crack at how the Citizen's Assembly was representative?

professore

alchemist33 wrote: »

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.

I voted No on this basis. I could make a strong case to myself to vote Yes but my conscience is clear that I voted no so not too miffed with the outcome.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

Anyone like to have a crack at how the Citizen's Assembly was representative?

Representative how? According to what requirement written in which law? The CA is an advisory body only. The Government can bin its proposals, long finger them, refer them to an all party committee, whatever they like. You have no right to be represented on every advisory body or think tank in the state.

That said, I think it is quite remarkable that at the CA, 64% of the members recommended that the termination of pregnancy without restriction
should be lawful.

People said they were mad, MAD! That was the dreaded Abortion on Demand! They were a gang of pointy-headed out of touch liberal professor types! It'd go nowhere! Just wait til the No campaign gets in gear, it'll be decimated! Who do they think they are??

And ultimately, 66% of the electorate agreed with them.

The Bishop Basher

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

People were voting on repealing the 8th.

The legislation will be whatever Simon feels he can get through the Dail next Autumn assuming we still have the same farce of a non government, assuming Sinn Fein can change their party stance which will require a vote, and assuming Simon is still minister for health.

A week is a long time in politics.

A Summer is a lifetime..

Zubeneschamali

Rennaws wrote: »

The legislation will be whatever Simon feels he can get through the Dail next Autumn assuming we still have the same farce of a non government and assuming Simon is still minister for health.

That is the usual story - with the TDs we have in Dail Eireann, what can we pass?

This is a bit different - this legislation has far more public support than the Government has. FG would be only delighted to be bring it to the Dáil and have the opposition vote against it making it a General Election issue.

FF are too cute to fall for that one.

antiskeptic

Rennaws wrote: »

Simon

The YES minister.

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

FF are too cute to fall for that one.

Hmmm. If they took the stance that the mandate-to-be-inferred-from-the-referendum was for a more restricted abortion (per e.g. the RTE poll) they could capture more of the vote?

I mean, they'd pick up the No's (vindicating and revitalising the No TD's, perhaps saving Michaels neck in the process) and might not loose that many Yes's. Martin would have the best of both worlds

If they seek to represent the people more than Fine Gael do then what harm?

.......

This post has been deleted.

davedanon

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is the usual story - with the TDs we have in Dail Eireann, what can we pass?

This is a bit different - this legislation has far more public support than the Government has. FG would be only delighted to be bring it to the Dáil and have the opposition vote against it making it a General Election issue.

FF are too cute to fall for that one.

Yeah, I agree. I also think that, unlike our NO friends desperately hoping that someone pulls a legal rabbit out of a hat, or just turns time back to last week and makes the referendum unhappen, anyone in Dail Eireann attempting to dilute the proposed legislation, or seen to be trying to introduce anything short of what was proposed/promised, will face a massive public backlash come election time. The 'craven politicians' that the NO side suddenly hate following their failure to produce the desired result are the way they are, mostly, because of the need to kowtow to their constituencies' views. Now that the majority of opposing TD's (mostly FF) have found out that the people they represent have more liberal views than they, which way will these craven lickspittle pols go, do you think, hmmm?

ELM327

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hmmm. If they took the stance that the mandate-to-be-inferred-from-the-referendum was for a more restricted abortion (per e.g. the RTE poll) they could capture more of the vote?

I mean, they'd pick up the No's and might not loose that many Yes's..

If they seek to represent the people more than Fine Gael do then what harm?

We've been over this with you already.
The harm is female bodily autonomy
As a male, I will leave the world as a corpse. At no time since sentience do I have, or would I ever have as a corpse, the same lack of autonomy that a woman HAD (god it feels good to say that in the past tense) under the 8th.


That's the harm.

davedanon

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hmmm. If they took the stance that the mandate-to-be-inferred-from-the-referendum was for a more restricted abortion (per e.g. the RTE poll) they could capture more of the vote?

I mean, they'd pick up the No's (vindicating and revitalising the No TD's) and might not loose that many Yes's. Martin would have the best of both worlds

If they seek to represent the people more than Fine Gael do then what harm?

I can only assume from this that you in fact live in some sort of alternative universe.

NuMarvel

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's never too late for a legal challenge. Not even after the introduction of the law. For if the basis on which the law was introduced is found faulty, then too the law which rests upon it



If it was found that the referendum was skewed in favour of a YES, the 2:1 wouldn't matter a darn.

Do you know what foundations are? And do you know what pyrite does to foundations and the structure above?

The operative word being If. And those are some pretty big ifs. Were someone to bring a challenge, the onus would be on them to prove those ifs are more than hypotheticals.

The Bishop Basher

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is the usual story - with the TDs we have in Dail Eireann, what can we pass?

This is a bit different - this legislation has far more public support than the Government has. FG would be only delighted to be bring it to the Dáil and have the opposition vote against it making it a General Election issue.

FF are too cute to fall for that one.

This goes way beyond parties though.

As far as i'm aware everyone has a free vote..

TD's as always, will be led by their constituents and that's where I believe the wheels may fall off the "abortion on demand" truck.

I've no doubt that we will get legislation with abortion in some form passed at some stage in the next year.

I think it's way too early to assume that legislation will look anything like what was proposed but we'll see.

I'm open to being completely wrong on this..

Time will tell..

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Representative how? According to what requirement written in which law? The CA is an advisory body only. The Government can bin its proposals, long finger them, refer them to an all party committee, whatever they like. You have no right to be represented on every advisory body or think tank in the state.

Absolutely agree.

However, If the Government chooses to be steered by the Committees findings and the Committee is found to be an easily identifiable farce, then my right not to be misled by the Government arises.

"Personal rights" aren't defined. It would be for the courts, I imagine, to decide whether e.g. deliberate misleading by the Government was an infringement of my rights

I'm no lawyer so just musing on it. Happy to park it and see what, if anything, comes out in the wash by way of legal challenge.

That said, I think it is quite remarkable that at the CA, 64% of the members recommended that the termination of pregnancy without restriction
should be lawful.

Did you read the bit regarding the circumstances whereby this "without restriction" applies?

The Bishop Basher

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'll see you back here in the Autumn :pac:

antiskeptic

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry to piss on your parade, but that wasn't on the ballot paper. Everything not on the ballot paper is inferred / hoped for / subject to change

blanch152

Bredabe wrote: »

Hopefully, one of the first things they do(soonest) removes the penalty for the importation of 'abortion pills', leaving users free to get medical help if they need it.

I actually think this law will remain in place. There are penalties for the importation of other medication not allowed in Ireland. Once the abortion pill is licensed here, expect the law in relation to illegal importation to be enforced as those pills with unknown origins present a threat to womens' health.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's never too late for a legal challenge. Not even after the introduction of the law. For if the basis on which the law was introduced is found faulty, then too the law which rests upon it

If Michael D. Higgins is clever, he will refer the new law to the Supreme Court for testing as to whether it is constitutional. Once the Court rules on that, it can never ever be challenged again.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If it was found that the referendum was skewed in favour of a YES, the 2:1 wouldn't matter a darn.

Do you know what foundations are? And do you know what pyrite does to foundations and the structure above?

Rubbish. how can a referendum be skewed? Of all the desperate balderdash you have spouted, this idea that the make-up of some Citizen's Assembly from 18 months ago affected the outcome of a referendum that was 66% approved really is astounding.

antiskeptic

Rennaws wrote: »

TD's as always, will be led by their constituents and that's where I believe the wheels may fall off the "abortion on demand" truck.

One wonders whether the electorate will be elastic on this. Pulled to the max you "only" manage to get a country split down the middle on the issue of aor12.

Given that their main concern has been alleviated (hard cases), can they be expected to retreat from aor12, now that the war is over?

A bit of buyers remorse, as it were.

.......

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic

blanch152 wrote: »

If Michael D. Higgins is clever, he will refer the new law to the Supreme Court for testing as to whether it is constitutional. Once the Court rules on that, it can never ever be challenged again.

And MDH ain't thick.

Rubbish. how can a referendum be skewed? Of all the desperate balderdash you have spouted, this idea that the make-up of some Citizen's Assembly from 18 months ago affected the outcome of a referendum that was 66% approved really is astounding.

You would have to find the actual flaw in the argument presented so as to jump to this conclusion.

I'm not saying there aren't flaws. It's just that they need teasing out.


The Government didn't pull the idea of a Citizen's Assembly out of a hat for no reason. If it was acceptable to simply put their proposals forward without reference to anyone then why not do that?

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hmmm. If they took the stance that the mandate-to-be-inferred-from-the-referendum was for a more restricted abortion (per e.g. the RTE poll) they could capture more of the vote?

No, because per the RTE poll, the Yes percentage is bigger than the No percentage.

antiskeptic

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Unfortunately, what the NO side said or didn't say has no relevance. What has relevance is what's on the ballot paper. Now I'll grant that if 66% of the electorate had exit polled for aor12 then the politicians would go with "what the public understood themselves to be voting for"

But since it's split, and if it's advantageous to them to deviate from aor12, then "the will of the people expressed through what's written on the ballot" will out