Changes to Birth Certificate rules by Harris

Iodine1

A birth certificate should be a record the biological make up of the person. A parental certificate should be used to record the family and fulfil all the legal issues re next of kin, inheritance etc etc that people are finding deficient in the birth cert.
Have we learned nothing from history? People were distraught over illegal adoptions where the birth cert was found not to be accurate.
Now, more importantly than ever, everyone is entitled to know their genetic make up, and the idea of anonymity for either egg or sperm donors is in my view simply wrong.

Balf

GM228 wrote: »

Why would that argument be made at the time? It didn't need to be as that was covered in the 2012 referendum. I think your missing the point I'm making, he is simply bringing into force legislation which was drafted 3 years before the 2015 referendum, the referendum it is not the basis for the legislation.

My take on his mention of the 2015 referendum is that the referendum did so much, now he should do some more as in implement what has already been provided for in legislation.

Also note what he stated:-

*1 "The referendum is about who can marry. It is not about parental rights for children. ... Enacting the Child and Family Relationship legislation in the coming month will mean that the only question in the minds of the people, when they vote on the Referendum question in May, should be about marriage equality, and not about children, parents, custody, adoption or the rest of it"

*2 "When we voted in the marriage equality referendum, we voted for every relationship to be treated equally. However, it is clear our legislation still needs to evolve"

He basically stated that (*1) the 2015 Act when enacted meant we only had to worry about marriage equality (and rightly so) for the purposes of the referendum as children, parents, custody, adoption or the rest of it was already provided for previously, but, (*2) that legislation whilst enacted never commenced, it does need to evolve by being brought into force and that is what he is doing.

That's my take on it anyway, I don't see any issues with the 2015 or latest comments.

Just to be clear, the first quote is Frances Fitzgerald, who as Minister in 2015 sponsored the amendment. The second is Simon Harris, speaking now. There is a very clear contrast between the two quotes.

In the first, we are told the Marriage Amendment has no impact on law relating to children and parents. In the second, we are told the Marriage Amendment mandates an agenda of change in law relating to children and parents.

And the significance of this is that a campaign now exists to press beyond the 2015 Act, to which the regulations relate.

Simon Harris is claiming this is what people voted for in 2015. The records shows that's not the proposition made at the time.

Now, to be clear, I'm not suggesting the Courts will care too much about political rhetoric when interpreting the Amendment. Its just worth noting these little lies we get told in the hope, as Roger Daltry might say, that we don't get fooled again.

GM228

Balf wrote: »

Just to be clear, the first quote is Frances Fitzgerald, who as Minister in 2015 sponsored the amendment. The second is Simon Harris, speaking now. There is a very clear contrast between the two quotes.

In the first, we are told the Marriage Amendment has no impact on law relating to children and parents. OIn the second, we are told the Marriage Amendment mandates an agenda of change in law relating to children and parents.

And the significance of this is that a campaign now exists to press beyond the 2015 Act, to which the regulations relate.

Simon Harris is claiming this is what people voted for in 2015. The records shows that's not the proposition made at the time.

Now, to be clear, I'm not suggesting the Courts will care too much about political rhetoric when interpreting the Amendment. Its just worth noting these little lies we get told in the hope, as Roger Daltry might say, that we don't get fooled again.

How does the second quote state the 2015 referendum mandates a change in the law, and how is it going beyond the 2015 Act, he is bringing into force parts of the 2015 Act (which have absolutely nothing to do with the 2015 referendum), not amending the Act.

I fail to see the issue with both statements and their relation to our laws and how there are "lies" associated with them? The first statement is very true, so what's wrong with the second, again it is true - he is bringing into force legislation drafted and promised long before the 2015 referendum.

Balf

GM228 wrote: »

How does the second quote state the 2015 referendum mandates a change in the law, and how is it going beyond the 2015 Act

I think its clearer when you see more of his statement

https://irishlegal.com/article/courts-could-be-granted-power-to-make-parental-orders-in-surrogacy-cases

Health Minister Simon Harris will later sign regulations to commence sections 2 and 3 of the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 from 5 May 2020.

Mr Harris said: “This is something many families have fought for for years and I am so pleased we know have a start date.

That, as you say, really only relates to bringing into force legislation that already exists.

But there's more, and this is where Simon Harris cites the marriage referendum as giving support for future legislative change relating to children and parents, which conflicts with the line in 2015 to the effect that the marriage referendum had nothing to do with that.

“When we voted in the marriage equality referendum, we voted for every relationship to be treated equally. However, it is clear our legislation still needs to evolve.

“When I met with LGBT families a number of weeks ago, they pointed out the impractical realities of our current laws and while we know some of their issues will be addressed through the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill, there are areas that require some consideration.

“I have some proposals as to how to look at these matters but I want to discuss these with the families first and hope to make some progress on this next week.”

You'll notice he doesn't refer to the Childrens Rights Referendum; maybe he should.

Do you think that addressing these issues as part of marriage equality leads to a different place to dealing with them as rights of the child? I haven't thought about it in detail, but I suspect it could.

blacklilly

In my view we need to thread careful here.

Whilst I appreciate parents who have chosen surrogacy or egg/sperm donation feel they should be noted on the birth cert, it must be equally recognised that everyone should retain the right to know who their biological parents are.

It is my view that the birth cert should only state biological parents and an additional cert be provided in cases where surrogacy/donation has been used.

The right for one person to create a human by surrogacy/donation should not supersede the right for someone to know who their biological parents are.

Balf

I agree with the need to thread carefully. These are emotive issues, but I really feel that emotion is being used to avoid frank discussion.

For instance, there's an article in the Journal that sets out the kind of thing being said, that has many statements that need challenge and elaboration

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/parental-rights-lgbt-4878542-Nov2019/

WHEN IRELAND VOTED overwhelmingly for the marriage equality referendum, we thought that when we have children everything is going to be equal.

As I posted above, it was very explicitly stated at the time that the marriage referendum had nothing to do with children and parents - yet its now being used as justification for change in the law relating to children and parents.

This Act covers same-sex couples who use a non-anonymous donor through an Irish clinic. We tried this and in spite of a lot of different treatments and approaches, it wasn’t successful......

After an expensive and traumatic few years, our friend decided to help us and donate sperm. We were delighted that after two attempts, Gabriela became pregnant and our son Luca was born.

Is this a euphemism for saying that Gabriela had intercourse with a man? Because if we're re-assigning parentage of naturally conceived children, we'd want to think it over for more than a minute.

It’s frustrating as we have Irish friends in England and Canada who are in the same situation as us but they have full parental rights. Why can’t Ireland just copy their laws?

Is it as simple as that? This is what a UK Government website says

https://www.gov.uk/legal-rights-for-egg-and-sperm-donors

If you’re a sperm donor, you could be the legal parent of any child born from your donation. ....
If you give birth to a child, you’re always considered the legal mother in UK law even when using a donated egg.

Some of these things are unalterable physical realities, and I expect we'll find other jurisdictions are facing exactly the same problems - and some of them may be bending to pressures that should be resisted.

drunkmonkey

It gets a hell of a lot trickier when you bring in artificial sperm and eggs pulled from two guys or girls, that's messing with the gene pool on a whole different level like we've never seen before. A baby created from 2 people of the same sex. It's a reality that's possible now.
I think it's a step too far but plenty won't if it's scientifically possible. It'll automatically become a right depending on what Harris pushes through.

drunkmonkey

Just like to say my last comment applies to anyone playing with IVG (not ivf) not necessarily a ss couple.
I'm not sure if it's legislated for under current laws but something that should be looked at.