Independent Senator Ronan Mullen has been strongly criticised for comments he made today on the circumstances in which Savita Halappanavar died. Mr Mullen claimed Ms Halappanavar would not have been in hospital and would not have died if abortion had been available in Ireland when she died in 2012. Mr Mullen made the comment in response to questions on RTÉ’s Today with Sean O’Rourke about whether Ms Halappanavar would still be alive if she was given a termination when she asked for one. The Senator replied: “If there was abortion on demand she wouldn’t have been in the hospital because she wouldn’t have been pregnant and she wouldn’t have been having a miscarriage.” Ms Halappanavar (31) died on October 28th, 2012 at Galway University Hospital, one week after she presented with back pain and was found to be miscarrying her 17-week pregnancy.
spookwoman wrote: » The whole system needs to be overhauled. They need to bring in maintenance, I also believe that women also need to take responsibility if they choose to go through with the pregnancy.
Grayson wrote: » Just to update with what onne of our senators said today.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ronan-mullen-strongly-criticised-for-comments-on-savita-1.3262015 The man is scum.
Grayson wrote: » The man is scum.
cnocbui wrote: » So he's scum for being right and stating the uncomfortable truth?
January wrote: » Savitas pregnancy was planned and wanted. They only requested termination when they knew that the foetus was not going to survive. It disgusts me that Ronan Mullen can get away with such comments. Vile cretinous man.
rainbow kirby wrote: » She had a wanted pregnancy and only asked for a termination when she, a healthcare professional herself, knew it was failing.
cnocbui wrote: » So she would be alive today if she had bad the termination she asked for?
Grayson wrote: » It's a clear lie that he said. Savita wanted to be pregnant.
cnocbui wrote: » Yes, I got that he was lying about that bit but he was nonetheless correct about her still being alive if she had been able to get the termination she ultimately requested.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » The NUI graduates who voted for that man really need to take a long, hard look at themselves. Although half of them are probably priests from Maynooth :rolleyes:
January wrote: » Yes. She would be. As stated several times by many health care professionals who've reviewed her case. The 8th amendment killed Savita.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » As if money was the only thing in consideration though? Firstly this is basically an invasive surgery. Which can come with all kinds of side effects and emotions. Do you not think a woman might prefer to be in familiar and comfortable surroundings? Secondly a lot of women change their mind. However since the time and effort to travel to the UK is high for some women in financial or other duress..... some may feel compelled by thinking "Well I am here now, I best go through with it" because they know they might not be able to come back again if they RE change their mind. Third I am not convinced it even WOULD be cheaper. Ryanair and low fares airlines have us thinking flights are cheap, but when you add up all the associated costs, accommodation, foods, travel from isolated airports no where near the city they are named for and so forth.... it can really add up. Fourth who even cares what is cheaper? The question is should we as a nation be offering this service at all, or not. That is a stand alone moral and ethical question and to hell with the costs of getting it elsewhere. Fifth, it might be cheaper for her to travel ALONE to the UK. But why do we want her to be alone when electing for such a procedure. Might she not want people with her? What of the costs of that? Sixth, you assume the procedure goes well. What if it does not. Said women is then in a foreign country, suffering from medical complications. Would she not be better off at home near her own hospitals, and on her own medical insurance and so forth? Should I go on, or is this enough to show just how poorly thought out your comment was?
thee glitz wrote: » Surely it couldn't happen again though?
Sheeps wrote: » Calm down, its just a small statement of fact. If cost is an issue, what makes you think you're going to be able to get it done in Ireland. You're going to be placed on a waiting list, in which case you'll probably have the baby before you get the abortion.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » As long as the 8th is there it can happen again.
January wrote: » Could happen again next week. As long as their is ambiguity as to where the rights of the foetus ends and the right to life of the woman begins then it could happen again. The foetus within Savita still had a heart beat. It was slow and getting slower each day but it was still there so even though Savita was getting sicker the doctors didn't know whether she was 'sick enough' that they could perform an abortion without being reprimanded for it.
January wrote: » Before 12 weeks you can take a pill. 92% of abortions occur before 12 weeks
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » It's not that they don't know, it's that their freedom to act is constrained by the constitution.
