Absolam wrote: » I've no doubt there are politicians with genuine honestly held opinions on both sides of this particular debate. I've also no doubt there are politicians who will see political capital to be made in supporting this bill. If you're not cynical about Irish politics, you're not paying attention.
The Black Oil wrote: » Hi there. From Broadsheet/Twitter Meanwhile...https://twitter.com/anitambyrne/status/750405923353616384
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Well I think it's absurd to attribute the motives you do to the prime movers behind the bill, Wallace and Daly, given their outspoken and in Daly's case longstanding public positions on the issue.
Speaking during the latest leaders questions Dáil debate yesterday, Mr Howlin said it is deeply worrying that Mr Kenny has been “faced down by members of his own cabinet” and has been unable to stop them taking an “a-la-carte approach to advice from the attorney general”...Claiming the “rule of law” in Government is now broken and that “no rules apply”, Mr Howlin said unless Mr Kenny moves to re-assert his power, his authority will be questioned.
Absolam wrote: » Being seen to be supportive of a measure of abortion that has polled as being the most palatable circumstance for abortion to the electorate.
aloyisious wrote: » Simon Harris has stated that the wording in the 8th has to change, so there may be other young FG TD's with opinions different to Enda's opinion.
I don't see FF voting for it, they'll probably just abstain in the vote.
This is an IMO: Re the AG, she can be right in what the law say's in it's wording in 43.3.3 (as amended by the 8th) but if the independents have different legal advice and think she's basing her advice NOT on 40.3.3 (as amended by the 8th) but on something from the SC, they can ignore her advice; "nothing personal".
alaimacerc wrote: » I think you mean change to "none". He's said he favours a referendum for repeal, and the context of his remarks very much suggested that's what he'd favour happening, too. Numerous FF spokesentities have been holding forth on their unparalleled graciousness and virtue in having a free vote on the PoLDPA. (i.e., allowing their backwoodsmen to slither out of their responsibilities to legislate for an existing SC decision.) This seemed to be to be, at the very least, a broad hint they were going to do the same in this case. Several have already indicated they're supportive, some would obviously be inclined to oppose. If FF keep having too many "free votes" on which they all just happen to vote exactly the same way, it might start to look slightly suspicious... That's essentially saying that 15.4.1 is entirely void. If the first legal opinion you get isn't one you like, keep going until you find one you like better, and then go ahead and have a punt at legislating however you wish.
Absolam wrote: » It seems to me he is saying that his advice from the CMO is a child that can be born alive (therefore not a child with FFA per Deputy Wallaces Bill) has a right to life under the Constitution, and inferring by that that at least in the opinion of the CMO (and that wouldn't be a legal opinion, but still an important one) that a child that cannot be born alive does not. Which if it were legally testable, would allow room for abortion of children who have truly fatal abnormalities which would preclude them being born alive.
seamus wrote: » Ultimately Mick Wallace's bill is a stunt to keep the debate at the forefront and not allow it to be ignored or pushed back to another government. Look at the dissent it's stirring up before it's even voted on. He's forcing the Government's hand to set a date for a referendum. If Enda refuses to set the date, he faces a vote of no confidence from his own TDs who want to repeal the eighth, and ultimately the end of his career.
seamus wrote: » Sam Coulter-Smith had an interesting point of view on this yesterday (sorry to be dragging the posts back a bit). However, he did point out that there was a clause there - the state had a duty to "defend, as far as is practicable" that right to life. And if a foetus has an FFA which has been confirmed as such, it would seem that defending that unborn's right to life is not only futile, but is also not practicable. And therefore constitutional to permit abortions in these cases. Obviously he wasn't saying this as fact, instead simply making the point that this is something the Supreme Court could have to rule on, it's a strong argument that could be made in favour of Wallace's bill, and that abortion for FFAs being unconstitutional is not a forgone conclusion.
alaimacerc wrote: » Actually, in the first such poll I was able to find (Sindo/Milbro, Nov '15) that's not at all the case. Support for access in cases of rape and long-term risk (as well as suicidality and medical risk of loss of life, obviously now provided for) were all higher than FFA.
alaimacerc wrote: » One would be an especially trusting person not to suspect that some people supporting this (especially the modest number of 'Fianna Fail liberals' that have spoken up) are doing so in the hopes of avoiding a more general examination of the 8th. And to be an equal-opportunity cynic, you'd wonder if some on the alphabet-soup left are supporting it in the hopes that it's then found not to be constitutional, because public outrage and political crisis; smash the state; ... ; profit.
seamus wrote: » Sam Coulter-Smith had an interesting point of view on this yesterday (sorry to be dragging the posts back a bit). That the constitution recognises the right to life is something of a foregone conclusion and therefore would appear to make Wallace's bill unconstitutional. However, he did point out that there was a clause there - the state had a duty to "defend, as far as is practicable" that right to life. And if a foetus has an FFA which has been confirmed as such, it would seem that defending that unborn's right to life is not only futile, but is also not practicable. And therefore constitutional to permit abortions in these cases. Obviously he wasn't saying this as fact, instead simply making the point that this is something the Supreme Court could have to rule on, it's a strong argument that could be made in favour of Wallace's bill, and that abortion for FFAs being unconstitutional is not a forgone conclusion.
Absolam wrote: » I'd be a little wary of giving more credence to your single survey without even a link to it than I give to the many surveys linked by Robdonn in the course of the thread, but yes, there's definitely a diversity of opinion out there.
It would (if successful) certainly be a way of substantially reducing support for a referendum on the 8th, though given the slim possibility of success it seems a bit of a fools gambit; all it will likely do is fan the flames of discussion, which would not really serve the interests of anyone opposing the possibility of repeal.
alaimacerc wrote: » I gave a provider and a date, and google is a thing. So your complaint on that score doesn't "even" seem to have the least bit of standing. As for its singleton status, as I said, it just happened to be first I found with any such breakdown. And it indicated an earlier such survey, discussing the change between them, of which the same observation would appear also to be true. So I'm counting 2/2 thus far, and I'm more than a little "wary" about extending much "credence" to vague statements about "many surveys". Much less of wasting too much more of my life chasing down offhand references to things "throughout the thread".
alaimacerc wrote: » You say "substantially", but it's far from clear there's any real gap at all between support for FFA for the other "popular" exceptions, much less a "substantial" one. Looking now at a summary of various past surveys on Wikipedia, where there's such a gap at all, it's typically running at about 1-2%, most commonly over the sexual crime one.
alaimacerc wrote: » For people that support multiple such exceptions (or broader liberalisation), what effect dealing with just one of them is very much open to question. People are hardly likely to change their minds about their positions on these; it might move it further down their political agenda somewhat.
alaimacerc wrote: » What's pretty clear is that the chances of such a measure passing are hampered less by the assorted constitutional difficulties, considerable as those may be, than by a) the plain fact that the Dail is vastly more conservative on this issue than the general populace, and b) by the legal difficulties/tactical decision by FG to package this up/long-finger with broader consideration of the 8th.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » In which surveys is the percentage supporting a right to abortion in cases of FFA significantly higher than in cases of rape/incest?
alaimacerc wrote: » I just caught them saying at the end of the News at One that a mighty 5 FFers voted for this. So it seems they don't have so much of a "liberal wing", as a "back of a minivan".
Two-thirds of voters say they are in favour of repealing the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution to allow for abortion in cases of rape and fatal foetal abnormalities, according to the latest Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll. The Eighth Amendment, inserted into the Constitution as article 40.3.3 in 1983, guarantees the equal right to life of the unborn and the mother, and is the foundation for Ireland’s anti-abortion laws. The attorney general recently reaffirmed her advice that proposed legislation allowing for abortion in case of fatal foetal abnormalities fell foul of the constitutional protections of article 40.3.3. The Dáil rejected the legislation, proposed by Independent TD Mick Wallace, yesterday. Asked if they were in favour of changing the Constitution “so that terminations in, for example, the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormality might be made legal”, 67 per cent of respondents said they were in favour. Some 21 per cent said they were opposed to repealing the eighth amendment, while 12 per cent said they didn’t know.
Absolam wrote: » Actually, in fairness I think rape was lumped in with FFA in the last survey Robdonn posted, so I suppose you couldn't say one had more support than the other, though I don't think incest was mentioned. Beyond that you'd be going back a bit so I think you'd need to ask Robdonn if he recalls.
Today’s figures are broadly in line with a poll in the Irish Times earlier this year, where 64 per cent said they were in favour of repealing the amendment and 25 per cent were against in the circumstances offered in the question.
drkpower wrote: » The pie chart is quite misleading. It suggests that 67% want repeal of the 8th simpliciter. But the question apparently asked was whether you favoured repeal of the 8th “so that terminations in, for example, the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormality might be made legal”. Repealing the 8th has much wider implications than rape and FFA obviously and when the debate starts in earnest its hard not to see that number narrow significantly.
drkpower wrote: » The pie chart is quite misleading. It suggests that 67% want repeal of the 8th simpliciter. But the question apparently asked was whether you favoured repeal of the 8th “so that terminations in, for example, the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormality might be made legal”.
Repealing the 8th has much wider implications than rape and FFA obviously and when the debate starts in earnest its hard not to see that number narrow significantly.
