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

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK

The citizens assembly voted to replace or amend the 8th amendment.

50% voted to replace or amend
44% voted to repeal
Rest preferred to not state an opinion

Now deciding how it will be replaced or amended
: Let the Dail legislate on the rights of the unborn
: Amend the provision in the constitution.

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

Mod- This thread has descended in to petty name calling. We've tried to let this thread run without too much mod interference but now it's on our radar we will be watching. From here on the name calling stops. If you can't debate civilly we will remove your right to post.

__________________

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ohnonotgmail

markodaly wrote: »

I never knew that people who lean pro-choice are able to reads peoples minds and intentions. Quite a gift you have there.

so why do you think they lied?

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

Interesting to note that they're not objecting to providing the service, just the manner it was announced.

Which from those lads usually means "Where's our money?".

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's a lie designed to tug at people's emotions.

.

I never knew that people who lean pro-choice are able to reads peoples minds and intentions. Quite a gift you have there.

.......

This post has been deleted.

drkpower

January wrote: »

What do you mean how much they will be paid for providing that service? It will come under a normal gp appointment just like any other that he prescribes pills for.

Very unlikely.

Obviously the whole scheme will need to be fleshed out but it will lilkely:
- Be free (regardless of medical card/means)
- Require counselling (in accordance with specific guidelines) in advance, and after
- Require at least 2 visits
- Require a commitment to out of hours support
- Require significant legal and regulatory compliance with, presumably, with legal implications if those regulations are not followed
- Require significant prior and ongoing training in light of all of the above

It wont be a case of off you pop down to Dr Bloggs, and grab me an abortion pill on the way home.

Peregrinus

January wrote: »

What do you mean how much they will be paid for providing that service? It will come under a normal gp appointment just like any other that he prescribes pills for.

Maybe it will. Or maybe this one will require more aftercare/followup than a normal GP appointment at which a prescription is given. Or other protocols to be followed. Or maybe there will be other complicating factors that I haven't thought of.

I'm not suggesting that there will be any of these things; I genuinely don't know. These are clinical issues about which I know nothing. But they're the kind of thing that the NAGP would definitely want to be talking to the HSE about. Even if there are to be none of these things, at the very least the NAGP and the HSE will want to have a conversation in which they agree that, yes, there are to be none of these things, and such an agreement is a necessary precursor to an agreement that these consultations will be reimbursed on the same scale as other consultations for prescription.

Captain Obvious

January wrote: »

What do you mean how much they will be paid for providing that service? It will come under a normal gp appointment just like any other that he prescribes pills for.

My impression is that they are talking about a more in depth consultation process for those seeking an abortion with follow up visits and the like. And if this is something going to be available on the medical card they will likely be underpaid for it.

January

Peregrinus wrote: »

NuMarvel wrote: »

Interesting to note that they're not objecting to providing the service, just the manner it was announced.

I think it's a bit more than the manner in which it was announced; it's the fact that it was announced at all.

From their point of view, I think there's two bothersome issues here; God and Mammon. On the God side, there's the fact that undoubtedly some GPs will object to providing the service at all, and my guess would be that a GP representative body would want to talk to the government about that, probably with a view to protecting the rights/interests of those GPs. On the Mammon side, if the GPs are to provide a new service, there needs to be conversations about how (and how much) they will be paid for providing that service, and the GP representative body would expect those conversations to be with them.

What do you mean how much they will be paid for providing that service? It will come under a normal gp appointment just like any other that he prescribes pills for.

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

That's fair enough comment too.
But in future polls as the time towards the vote gets closer and more interested groups may come out on the restriction limits will the actual vote mirror that.
I know its all supposition now as the actual wording is not known yet.
But the fact of the 12 week limit and indeed that all foetal rights are being removed from the constitution are making a lot of people perhaps think a bit more about their vote.

You asked how representative the OC and CA were of the electorate, and going by the tools available to us, they seem to be in line. That can of course change, and the outcome will ultimately be decided by those who vote, not the entirety of the electorate. But as things stand, it is fair to say that the CA reflects the opinions of the electorate.

And I'm sure plenty of people are going to think about their vote, and I hope they do. The experience so far has been that when people are given facts and an opportunity to discuss and consider the matter, they support repeal. So I'm all for people making a considered and informed vote.

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

It might be that if GPs unilaterally decide that enough of their members are not happy with providing the service that you could see the set up of abortion centers/clinics, call them what you will.
Now if that happened then they could become the target of pro life groups.
I would imagine that the last thing any woman considering abortion would want would be running a gauntlet of potential abuse if she was getting the help she needed.
Poor form on the govt side so far not to have sounded this aspect out.

You're reading an awful lot into a GP union objecting to the lack of consultation. Let's wait a while before making predictions of anarchy on the streets

Annasopra

Edward M wrote: »

You'd wonder how representative of the electorate are the CA and indeed the OC, lots of dissenting voices coming out now?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/varadkar-stresses-12week-limit-on-abortion-not-plucked-out-of-air-36572006.html

Of course there are dissenting voices. That is democracy. The CA was 99 citizens chosen at random. 92 voted. The OC are all representatives of the electorate. There was dissenting voices at both. You will never gind unanimity on this issue so I am not sure really what your point is.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

Public opinion and the CA seem in line with each other when it comes to changing the constitution and the 12 week limit.

In the CA, 13% were opposed to any constitutional change, and polls show that 15% of the public share the same opinion. And for the 12 week limit, 64% of CA attendees supported this, and polls since then put public support at 65%. I haven't looked at all the Committee votes, but I know that only 15% of the members favoured retention of the 8th, so there's consistency across the board on that aspect.

Also, note how the CoI are objecting to the post-referendum legislation, not the proposed repeal and enable clause. And that's consistent with their previous statements that this matter doesn't belong in the constitution, and with their oppostion to the 8th back in 1983.

That's fair enough comment too.
But in future polls as the time towards the vote gets closer and more interested groups may come out on the restriction limits will the actual vote mirror that.
I know its all supposition now as the actual wording is not known yet.
But the fact of the 12 week limit and indeed that all foetal rights are being removed from the constitution are making a lot of people perhaps think a bit more about their vote.

NuMarvel

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think it's a bit more than the manner in which it was announced; it's the fact that it was announced at all.

From their point of view, I think there's two bothersome issues here; God and Mammon. On the God side, there's the fact that undoubtedly some GPs will object to providing the service at all, and my guess would be that a GP representative body would want to talk to the government about that, probably with a view to protecting the rights/interests of those GPs. On the Mammon side, if the GPs are to provide a new service, there needs to be conversations about how (and how much) they will be paid for providing that service, and the GP representative body would expect those conversations to be with them.

Edward M wrote: »

You imagine though that the profession to be tasked with the implementation of the scheme if passed would have been consulted somewhere along the line before now?

The Government is in a damned if they do, and damned if they don't situation here. If they start consulting GPs before they make any announcement, they'll be accused of being arrogant and presumptuous of the people's will and being disrespectful towards the people by not announcing it to them first. If they don't, they're accused of being presumptuous of the GPs.

Do I think they could have handled it better? Sure. I'd have added in a line about offering a GP-led service, in consultation with the appropriate bodies, etc (and maybe they said that and it wasn't picked up). Do I think it will affect the outcome of the referendum? No.

Peregrinus

Edward M wrote: »

You imagine though that the profession to be tasked with the implementation of the scheme if passed would have been consulted somewhere along the line before now?

Mmm. It might be a bit premature to consult with them about a scheme that requires constitutional amendment when you haven't got your amendment, or even published your proposed text. Carrying this whole project through successfully will require some nifty political footwork, and making some decisions which, if you go one way, will piss off some people and, if you go the other, will piss off others.

NAGP's irritation about not being consulted earlier is probably a downside that Varadkar can accept. If he doesn't have the agreement of the people to an abortion scheme, the agreement of the doctors is irrelevant. Conversely, if he seeks the agreement of the doctors early on, that can be made to look presumptuous or arrogant.

Assume that Varadkar is happy with a scheme under which medical practitioner may provide abortions in defined circumstances, but are not legally compelled to if they choose on ethical grounds not to do so. (That's the case pretty well everywhere in Europe, so I'd be astonished if that's not how it ended up here.) The real issue will be how much GPs are to be paid for doing so, and that's definitely a level of detail that we don't need to have nailed down just yet.

Edward M

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think it's a bit more than the manner in which it was announced; it's the fact that it was announced at all.

From their point of view, I think there's two bothersome issues here; God and Mammon. On the God side, there's the fact that undoubtedly some GPs will object to providing the service at all, and my guess would be that a GP representative body would want to talk to the government about that, probably with a view to protecting the rights/interests of those GPs. On the Mammon side, if the GPs are to provide a new service, there needs to be conversations about how (and how much) they will be paid for providing that service, and the GP representative body would expect those conversations to be with them.

It might be that if GPs unilaterally decide that enough of their members are not happy with providing the service that you could see the set up of abortion centers/clinics, call them what you will.
Now if that happened then they could become the target of pro life groups.
I would imagine that the last thing any woman considering abortion would want would be running a gauntlet of potential abuse if she was getting the help she needed.
Poor form on the govt side so far not to have sounded this aspect out.

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

You'd wonder how representative of the electorate are the CA and indeed the OC, lots of dissenting voices coming out now?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/varadkar-stresses-12week-limit-on-abortion-not-plucked-out-of-air-36572006.html

Public opinion and the CA seem in line with each other when it comes to changing the constitution and the 12 week limit.

In the CA, 13% were opposed to any constitutional change, and polls show that 15% of the public share the same opinion. And for the 12 week limit, 64% of CA attendees supported this, and polls since then put public support at 65%. I haven't looked at all the Committee votes, but I know that only 15% of the members favoured retention of the 8th, so there's consistency across the board on that aspect.

Also, note how the CoI are objecting to the post-referendum legislation, not the proposed repeal and enable clause. And that's consistent with their previous statements that this matter doesn't belong in the constitution, and with their oppostion to the 8th back in 1983.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

Interesting to note that they're not objecting to providing the service, just the manner it was announced.

You imagine though that the profession to be tasked with the implementation of the scheme if passed would have been consulted somewhere along the line before now?

Peregrinus

NuMarvel wrote: »

Interesting to note that they're not objecting to providing the service, just the manner it was announced.

I think it's a bit more than the manner in which it was announced; it's the fact that it was announced at all.

From their point of view, I think there's two bothersome issues here; God and Mammon. On the God side, there's the fact that undoubtedly some GPs will object to providing the service at all, and my guess would be that a GP representative body would want to talk to the government about that, probably with a view to protecting the rights/interests of those GPs. On the Mammon side, if the GPs are to provide a new service, there needs to be conversations about how (and how much) they will be paid for providing that service, and the GP representative body would expect those conversations to be with them.

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

I see the organisation that represents family doctors say they are outraged that the minister never consulted them on what is being proposed.
They question how Simon Harris presumed that the state could direct GPs to lead an abortion service without consultation and the implications for GPs.
They say they strongly object to the assumption that GPs will lead an abortion service.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0205/938543-nagp-abortion/

Interesting to note that they're not objecting to providing the service, just the manner it was announced.

Edward M

RobertKK wrote: »

I see the organisation that represents family doctors say they are outraged that the minister never consulted them on what is being proposed.
They question how Simon Harris presumed that the state could direct GPs to lead an abortion service without consultation and the implications for GPs.
They say they strongly object to the assumption that GPs will lead an abortion service.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0205/938543-nagp-abortion/

You'd wonder how representative of the electorate are the CA and indeed the OC, lots of dissenting voices coming out now?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/varadkar-stresses-12week-limit-on-abortion-not-plucked-out-of-air-36572006.html

RobertKK

I see the organisation that represents family doctors say they are outraged that the minister never consulted them on what is being proposed.
They question how Simon Harris presumed that the state could direct GPs to lead an abortion service without consultation and the implications for GPs.
They say they strongly object to the assumption that GPs will lead an abortion service.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0205/938543-nagp-abortion/

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And have you read the Citizens Assembly and Oireachtas Committee and looked at why such options were rejected?

Not very much, but I'm going to go with because it was easier and/or more appealing to do so?

njs030

thee glitz wrote: »

If a referendum to allow abortion in restricted cases only was possible (and we already have that, so I mean allowing for more), then that should be put to the people before a referendum which potentially allows for a free for all.

What type of restricted cases are you talking about?

Loafing Oaf

Well it's a moot point anyway because we're going to have a referendum on 'unrestricted' abortion. What I'm wondering is would the government consider having a 'limited' referendum if this one is defeated. Would pro-choice activists even want such a referendum, or would they prefer to wait for another crack at full liberalisation.

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

If a referendum to allow abortion in restricted cases only was possible (and we already have that, so I mean allowing for more), then that should be put to the people before a referendum which potentially allows for a free for all.

And have you read the Citizens Assembly and Oireachtas Committee and looked at why such options were rejected?

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What are you on about then?

If a referendum to allow abortion in restricted cases only was possible (and we already have that, so I mean allowing for more), then that should be put to the people before a referendum which potentially allows for a free for all.

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't favour time limits at all

What are you on about then?

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Again I have to ask has anyone who is a proponent of time limits in the constitution actually read up on why this option was rejected by both the Citizens Assembly and the Oireachtas Committee? Or are you just arguing the case without facts?

I don't favour time limits at all

Hellrazer

You`ll never guess the absolute bollox a canvasser told my wife tonight.
Apparently all foetuses are fully formed from the moment of conception.
They even told her it had arms and legs and that abortion was killing a fully formed human being.
Yep thats right--fully formed with arms and legs from the moment of conception.
Just as well I didnt answer the door!!!

If this is what the pro lifers are reduced to telling people then I really fear for the outcome of this referendum.

These absolute lies need to be debunked by the pro choice groups.

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

If a 'limited' referendum is possible, then that's what should take place first.

Its possible however it creates a massive legal quagmire. Having something in the constitution does not create certainty at all. We were forewarned this in the 1980s by Mary Robisnon, Peter Sutherland and many others and look what a mess the 8th became. It is not as if the cabinet just pulled the decision out of thin air. The Citizens Assembly and the Oireachtas Committee both took a number of months in considering the issues in depth. They were given access to legal expertise. They were given a chance to discuss and debate. Neither reccommended this option of time limits.

Again I have to ask has anyone who is a proponent of time limits in the constitution actually read up on why this option was rejected by both the Citizens Assembly and the Oireachtas Committee? Or are you just arguing the case without facts?