nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

You have a very confused interpretation. The court found that her abortion was legal here, and also that she could not be stopped from traveling to the UK for it.

This is more or less what I said about the X Case, so we agree on that part.

They also found that the 8th could be used to prevent abortions overseas that wouldn't be legal here. Hence why we had the referendum on the 13th Amendment to overturn this finding. And you don't seem to be challenging me on that, so it looks you pretty much agree with my "confused interpretation".

gaius c

Odhinn wrote: »

I'm unsure if this is relevant overall, but you might see why I suspect it is

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0112/932824-thawley-legal-action/

Yep, should never have gone to surgery in the first place and the rush to do that is what killed her.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

You have a very confused interpretation.

Lol

Please point me towards the court decision(s) which upheld a right to abortion information despite the 8th?

You are attempting to rewrite history.

recedite

NuMarvel wrote: »

In the X Case, the Supreme Court found that the 8th could be used to prevent someone having an abortion abroad that would be illegal here. That's the basis on which they dismissed the injunction against Ms X; her abortion would have been legal here so there was no reason for stopping her going elsewhere.

You have a very confused interpretation. The court found that her abortion was legal here, and also that she could not be stopped from traveling to the UK for it.

NuMarvel

I haven't followed the discussion all the way back, so apologies if I'm repeating some info, but here's some necessary background on the freedoms to travel and to information.

In the 80s, the courts found that the 8th could be used to injunct the distribution of information about abortion. This was established in two injunctions sought by SPUC, against the Well Woman Clinic and a Student's Union.

In the X Case, the Supreme Court found that the 8th could be used to prevent someone having an abortion abroad that would be illegal here. That's the basis on which they dismissed the injunction against Ms X; her abortion would have been legal here so there was no reason for stopping her going elsewhere.

Both of these are consequences of the 8th, and the restriction on travel was predicted by campaigners against the 8th back in '83. The restriction on the distribution of information was found to be a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights in 1992.

But regardless of whether they were forseen or not, they would still have been valid and legal if the referendums on them had failed.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

Subsequent amendments then clarified the situation. Hence it was established that the original 8th did not impinge on the right to travel or prevent abortion if the mothers life was at risk.

That's a contradiction.

If further amendments were required to "clarify" the situation, then by definition the 8th impinged on the right to travel.

If it didn't, then it wouldn't have needed "clarification".

You're defending an amendment that was put before the people in bad faith, was predicted by experts to produce an absolute clusterfnck of legal complications, and bore out those predictions exactly.

Not only did it force the government to legalise abortion in certain circumstances (even though it was "iron clad" protection against it), it has also resulted in a minefield of medical law which has caused the needless deaths of both mothers and the unborn.

Anyone who was truly pro-life would be in favour of tearing down the 8th and starting again with something written by lawyers, not bishops.

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

I'm unsure if this is relevant overall, but you might see why I suspect it is
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0112/932824-thawley-legal-action/

Without knowing the full details, I'd guess the husband will eventually end up receiving an undisclosed settlement as compensation for medical negligence, a bit like Mr. Halappanavar.
The taxpayer will end up footing the bill. Those who wish to blame the 8th amendment will happily do so, and those who were guilty of negligence will go largely unpunished. These are tragic cases and no amount of money can compensate for the loss.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The 8th as it was originally written and enacted removed these rights.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

the 8th as originally written imperilled these rights.

Now we are getting closer to agreement. "Imperilled" in the sense that some people may have tried to read into the 8th amendment a very restrictive meaning, but that interpretation was shot down by subsequent court cases. Subsequent amendments then clarified the situation. Hence it was established that the original 8th did not impinge on the right to travel or prevent abortion if the mothers life was at risk.

Odhinn

I'm unsure if this is relevant overall, but you might see why I suspect it is

The husband of a woman who died at the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin during surgery for an ectopic pregnancy has begun a legal action over her death.

Malak Thawley, 34, died on 8 May 2016 after what her husband Alan's lawyers called a "cascade of negligence."

"Mr Thawley arranged a private scan when she was six weeks pregnant as the couple could not wait for the scan at the hospital at 12 weeks.

This scan showed Mrs Thawley had an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus was growing in her right fallopian tube instead of in her womb."

The court was told that Mr Thawley had discovered on the internet that an ectopic pregnancy without symptoms could be treated with a drug called methotrexate.

But he was told at the hospital that, because the foetal sac had a heartbeat, this drug was not an option and the only option was surgical intervention.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0112/932824-thawley-legal-action/

Hotblack Desiato

Hamlet is basically saying "get off the fcuking fence". Something Leo will have to do, sooner or later...

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"Seems", madam? Nay, it is, I know not "seems".

Hamlet, Act 1 Scene 2

Or 'is not,' as the case may be.;)

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"Seems", madam? Nay, it is, I know not "seems".

Well, seemingly!

Hotblack Desiato

"Seems", madam? Nay, it is, I know not "seems".

Hamlet, Act 1 Scene 2

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's, as reported on by RTE today [see RTE's online news] that Leo seem's to be undecided or unwilling now as to what his position is on the wording element of the future referendum on abortion, and that he seem's to find the committee report too decided/preferential for his liking. This from the Examiner..... http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/cabinet-split-emerges-over-unease-at-12-week-abortion-access-465608.html

'seem' is very much the operative word here IMO...

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

With ref the 8th, not so. The other amendments referred to separate rights which the SC ruled existed

I'm pretty sure the SC did not rule that a right to information existed - it's likely the SUs caved at the High Court stage. IIRC SC ruled in the X case that a right to travel existed because the woman's right to life was at risk due to suicide. It did not create a general right to travel.

and which referendum were held on to THEN insert the said rights INTO the wording of OTHER articles and sections/sub-sections of the constitution, not the ARTICLE the 8th amendment was added to.

Incorrect. The 8th amendment inserted article 40.3.3 into the constitution, which now survives intact as the first para of 40.3.3. Travel and information were appended onto the same article, 40.3.3.

It's like Judge Humphreys ruling on what is, and isn't a child, with rights under the 8th within the constitution. His ruling extended to presume obligations exist within the constitution, all based on his presumption that the unborn is a child within the meaning or our constitutional.

This is what is worrying about a straight repeal, with no explicit right to abortion. All they need to do is delete 40.3.3 and replace it with something like "Termination of pregnancy shall be permissible in accordance with law." ensurong an explicit right for the Oireachtas to legislate.

Other amendments were clarifications on rights assumed to exist being inserted into the constitution as a result of SC rulings on lower court rulings. The freedom to travel amendment that was inserted into the constitution was as a result of what the SC ruled was an ultra vires decision by the high court to give the AG [of the time] permission to try deny a citizen the right of free movement [travel].

If the SC ruled a general right to travel existed though, we wouldn't have needed an amendment on that point.

On the extension of existing rights to abortion, It seem's, as reported on by RTE today [see RTE's online news] that Leo seem's to be undecided or unwilling now as to what his position is on the wording element of the future referendum on abortion, and that he seem's to find the committee report too decided/preferential for his liking. This from the Examiner..... http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/cabinet-split-emerges-over-unease-at-12-week-abortion-access-465608.html

Speaking out of both sides of his mouth and not for the first time. The Irish Times headline practically quoted him as saying "12 weeks is a step too far" but he didn't actually say that. He dog-whistled the anti-choice brigade while also not actually saying he disagreed with committee position.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

If that was true, then they would have had to remove it entirely before replacing it with those other amendments you mentioned.
But because that is not true, they were able to introduce the others as clarifications for the situation already pertaining.

With ref the 8th, not so. The other amendments referred to separate rights which the SC ruled existed and which referendum were held on to THEN insert the said rights INTO the wording of OTHER articles and sections/sub-sections of the constitution, not the ARTICLE the 8th amendment was added to.

It's like Judge Humphreys ruling on what is, and isn't a child, with rights under the 8th within the constitution. His ruling extended to presume obligations exist within the constitution, all based on his presumption that the unborn is a child within the meaning or our constitutional.

Other amendments were clarifications on rights assumed to exist being inserted into the constitution as a result of SC rulings on lower court rulings. The freedom to travel amendment that was inserted into the constitution was as a result of what the SC ruled was an ultra vires decision by the high court to give the AG [of the time] permission to try deny a citizen the right of free movement [travel].

On the extension of existing rights to abortion, It seem's, as reported on by RTE today [see RTE's online news] that Leo seem's to be undecided or unwilling now as to what his position is on the wording element of the future referendum on abortion, and that he seem's to find the committee report too decided/preferential for his liking. This from the Examiner..... http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/cabinet-split-emerges-over-unease-at-12-week-abortion-access-465608.html

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

If that was true, then they would have had to remove it entirely before replacing it with those other amendments you mentioned.
But because that is not true, they were able to introduce the others as clarifications for the situation already pertaining.

I wonder if you are being wilfully obtuse.

Do you remember SPUC and co. going to the courts and getting injuctions against students unions for publishing an abortion information phone number?

The fact amendments were required to explicitly permit information and travel is proof in itself that the 8th as originally written imperilled these rights.

These were not 'clarifications' they were specific REVERSALS of aspects of the constitutional position created by the 8th.

Your statement that they would have to remove the 8th to amend 40.3.3 is laughable. They left the text introduced by the 8th (1st para of the present 40.3.3) in place, but added other text to protect travel and information from being prevented by the 8th.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The 8th as it was originally written and enacted removed these rights.

If that was true, then they would have had to remove it entirely before replacing it with those other amendments you mentioned.
But because that is not true, they were able to introduce the others as clarifications for the situation already pertaining.

aloyisious

People listening to RTE today probably heard the news that the SC is set for a hearing on the question of whether the unborn is a child within the meaning of Judge Humphreys understanding of the 8th in the constitution [and the ruling he gave to that effect] and given protection under other parts of the constitution as a result. The case is to be given priority for a hearing, possibly next month.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

I think you'll find that any attempts to impose the above alleged restrictions over the years have been prevented by the courts, relying on the 8th amendment, resulting in the current legislation which specifically allows abortion if women's lives are at risk, guarantees travel rights and does not affect other aspects of healthcare (what were you thinking of here anyway, women's dental treatment?)

You're wrong. Completely wrong.

X Case - the AG sought a High Court injunction to prevent the woman from travelling to UK - High Court granted it citing the 8th as justification. Supreme Court overturned it in that case but it took a further amendment to copperfasten the right to travel for all cases

The 8th continues to adversely affect women's healthcare to this day. No choice over membrane sweep, induction of labour, waters broken etc. A pregnant woman cannot refuse to consent to 'treatment' if medics consider it in the foetus's best interest

Several women have died because of refusal/delay to provide a termination, refusal to provide chemotherapy while pregnant etc. All because of the 8th.

Travel and (quite limited) information rights are only guaranteed because we had to have two further referendums to allow them. The 8th as it was originally written and enacted removed these rights.

aloyisious

We might have a "leaked" date tomorrow from the Govt after its meeting about the report. RTE news today mentioning May 25th.

Cabaal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLWnoQjTNiw

.

Mary was spot on in this debate and he was completely wrong,
She knew what she was talking about, he was either uneducated on the matter or knowingly lying about it by claiming he was so certain.

At least Mary was honest that he can't claim such certainty. .

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ah yes the man who did more than anyone else to bring us the 8th amendment
The man who promised it could not be used to prevent travel - WRONG
The man who promised it would not affect women's healthcare - WRONG
The man who promised it would not put women's lives at risk - WRONG

I think you'll find that any attempts to impose the above alleged restrictions over the years have been prevented by the courts, relying on the 8th amendment, resulting in the current legislation which specifically allows abortion if women's lives are at risk, guarantees travel rights and does not affect other aspects of healthcare (what were you thinking of here anyway, women's dental treatment?)

Zerbini Blewitt

Whenever I see that clip I imagine this soundtrack playing in the background -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSRm80WzZk

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

William Binchy has an opinion-piece on the issue of what legalized abortion here in the future will allow for as a result of what the Committee didn't, in his opinion, rule out.

Ah yes the man who did more than anyone else to bring us the 8th amendment
The man who promised it could not be used to prevent travel - WRONG
The man who promised it would not affect women's healthcare - WRONG
The man who promised it would not put women's lives at risk - WRONG

On youtube there's an RTE programme from 1983, just after the 8th vote, with him and Mary Robinson. Robinson took him apart basically and events since have proven her right

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLWnoQjTNiw

Why anybody apart from the 'true believer' anti-choicers would consider him to have any credibility at all is beyond me.

aloyisious

volchitsa wrote: »

Quite apart from what the committee said or not, it does seem to me that limiting termination for disability according to time rather than gravity is a dangerous thing to do. New developments like Zika could could arise, and by definition who knows at what stage of pregnancy these could initially be diagnosed. I would think an ethical committee (free of religious beliefs if possible!) would be a better approach. Or just giving doctors the right to refuse, which is what I believe happens in Canada, with the result that more late terminations take place in the US, despite there being no legal time limit in Canada.

That would need a change in legislative rules [law] as distinct from professional body ethics and guidelines, which some bodies still rely on to [provide] excuse [for] failures to do what is/was blindingly obvious when it comes/came to saving pregnant womens lives. Providing doctors an opt-out clause in [any] law would have to be linked to a legal obligation for the refuser to name another qualified doctor to take his/her place IMMEDIATELY at the operation table, and not use the opt-out as a means to drag-out an operation start. No more of the "we have to wait for" delays in operations ending in the patient dying surrounded by doctors due to their "understanding" of the law.

lazygal

Binchy and Co wrote similar pieces warning of the millions of abortions women would be getting in 2013 after the passage of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, with the same strange focus on later term abortions.

aloyisious

I ran out of free access to what the Irish Examiner has in it today on the subject so can't provide links here you can open directly. Both Michael Clifford [it's editor] and Daniel McConnell have columns on it, Dan's being about the task facing Simon Harris on any changes to legisltion. You'll have to google the paper your-self for the columns and details.

volchitsa

Quite apart from what the committee said or not, it does seem to me that limiting termination for disability according to time rather than gravity is a dangerous thing to do. New developments like Zika could could arise, and by definition who knows at what stage of pregnancy these could initially be diagnosed. I would think an ethical committee (free of religious beliefs if possible!) would be a better approach. Or just giving doctors the right to refuse, which is what I believe happens in Canada, with the result that more late terminations take place in the US, despite there being no legal time limit in Canada.

aloyisious

William Binchy has an opinion-piece on the issue of what legalized abortion here in the future will allow for as a result of what the Committee didn't, in his opinion, rule out. It seem's Bill is going broadstroke in saying the committee is allowing for unlimited abortion. Some parts of his opinion-piece seem to conflict with each other, even in immediate sentences: Para 2 ref reasons..... The majority of the committee proposes the abortion of unborn children in the first 12 weeks of their lives “with no restriction as to reason”. The ostensible inspiration for this proposal is the unworkability of grounds for abortions based on rape, but the breadth of the committee’s proposal has no limits. Abortion for disability clearly falls within its scope. If no reasons need be given, any reason will do.

He also CONCLUDES includes, through it's lack of specific objection to other European countries laws, that the committee does not INSIST ON oppose gestational limits for abortion here. Para 3: The committee notes that in a number of European countries the health ground “does not have a gestational limit” (or, put another way, permits abortion up to birth). The committee, far from recoiling at such a law, embraces it. It considers that “medical practitioners, acting in good faith, and in consultation with the woman, are best placed to make such a decision” and it proposes no time limits.

I disagree with his view about what the committee did, and didn't, do. His argument, in his attempt to make his point, credits the committee members with things they did not state. Somehow I doubt if the committee has in it's report, or any part of any joint statement, included the words in Bill's opinion-piece credited to the committee: The Committee, Far From Recoiling At Such A Law, Embraces IT.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/oireachtas-committee-opens-door-to-abortion-for-disability-1.3346026

Please note that I have edited parts of the 1st sentence of Para 2 to include Upper Case words and put lines through the words replaced.