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

Peregrinus wrote: »

There was an illegal abortion trade in until legal abortion became available in the UK. For obvious reasons, hard figures are not available, but the trade certainly existed and there are, for example, records of prosecutions of people for administering abortions.

And, yes, it was a back-alley trade. It was unlawful, unregulated and unsafe. Google "Nurse Cadden" for an instance of someone being prosecuted for murder when a woman died during the administration of an abortion. At least one other women had previously died during an abortion administered by Nurse Cadden, and she had several convictions for administering abortions and for child abandonment (of an infant born alive) before her murder conviction. And there were many practitioners other than Nurse Cadden.

Business pretty much dried up once legal abortion became available in the UK, but this obviously had nothing to do with the unborn baby having "plenty of protection".

Some in Dublin of a certain age might be familiar with Nurse Cadden,a famous backstreet abortionist. She was sentenced to death after one of the girls died. Ended up in the Central mental hospital.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamie_Cadden

PopePalpatine

Ineedaname wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/03/08/a-pro-life-pattern/

So it turns out one of the people featured on the "My Abortion Story" billboards was a fake.

Not only did he not work in an abortion theatre as he claimed he's actually a convicted armed robber.

Hey, maybe he targeted a bank holding money for one of The Spooky Hungarian Jew's front organisations! #LoveBoth

Zubeneschamali

Ineedaname wrote: »

Not only did he not work in an abortion theatre as he claimed he's actually a convicted armed robber.

These people are rising to the stunning incompetence level of the Trump campaign.

So they could still win :pac:

david75

Ineedaname wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/03/08/a-pro-life-pattern/

So it turns out one of the people featured on the "My Abortion Story" billboards was a fake.

Not only did he not work in an abortion theatre as he claimed he's actually a convicted armed robber.

This the pro life campaign guy that said he was a nurse? And found to be neither on the registry in Ireland or the UK? Apparently all mention of him has been removed from the PLC websites and social media platforms.
Colour me shocked. Surprised they haven’t said he was a Pro choice plant

Ineedaname

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/03/08/a-pro-life-pattern/

So it turns out one of the people featured on the "My Abortion Story" billboards was a fake.

Not only did he not work in an abortion theatre as he claimed he's actually a convicted armed robber.

eviltwin

Peregrinus wrote: »

You may have been told this story, but it is not credible. Neither the woman nor the Master could have been prosecuted - it is not an offence to have had an abortion, and it is not an offence to know that someone has had an abortion - and the Master would have been well aware of the fact.

when I told my midwife in the rotunda that I'd had an abortion - she was taking my medical history - she said it would be better not to include it. Not sure why, I didn't ask.

.......

This post has been deleted.

January

beertons wrote: »

I was told a story last night about a woman who previously had an abortion, went for a smear in Holles street. The master of the hospital did the smear, and remarked of some abnormal cells. Woman said to master that she recently had an abortion. The master was making notes, looked up and said you can't tell me that. Both you and I can be prosecuted. He wrote down miscarriage on the sheet as an explanation. Happened around 2003.

That's pretty much horse****... for the reasons stated by Peregrinus.

Peregrinus

beertons wrote: »

I was told a story last night about a woman who previously had an abortion, went for a smear in Holles street. The master of the hospital did the smear, and remarked of some abnormal cells. Woman said to master that she recently had an abortion. The master was making notes, looked up and said you can't tell me that. Both you and I can be prosecuted. He wrote down miscarriage on the sheet as an explanation. Happened around 2003.

You may have been told this story, but it is not credible. Neither the woman nor the Master could have been prosecuted - it is not an offence to have had an abortion, and it is not an offence to know that someone has had an abortion - and the Master would have been well aware of the fact.

beertons

I was told a story last night about a woman who previously had an abortion, went for a smear in Holles street. The master of the hospital did the smear, and remarked of some abnormal cells. Woman said to master that she recently had an abortion. The master was making notes, looked up and said you can't tell me that. Both you and I can be prosecuted. He wrote down miscarriage on the sheet as an explanation. Happened around 2003.

Peregrinus

nice_guy80 wrote: »

and yet the unborn baby had plenty of protection before the 8th amendment was inserted into the constitution anyway

I don't remember hearing about the thousands of back alley abortions being carried out in the 60s, 70s, 80s
was there a concerted campaign against unborn babies before the 8th was voted in?

There was an illegal abortion trade in Ireland until legal abortion became available in the UK. For obvious reasons, hard figures are not available, but the trade certainly existed and there are, for example, records of prosecutions of people for administering abortions.

And, yes, it was a back-alley trade. It was unlawful, unregulated and unsafe. Google "Nurse Cadden" for an instance of someone being prosecuted for murder when a woman died during the administration of an abortion. At least one other women had previously died during an abortion administered by Nurse Cadden, and she had several convictions for administering abortions and for child abandonment (of an infant born alive) before her murder conviction. And there were many practitioners other than Nurse Cadden.

Business pretty much dried up once legal abortion became available in the UK, but this obviously had nothing to do with the unborn baby having "plenty of protection".

nice_guy80

and yet the unborn baby had plenty of protection before the 8th amendment was inserted into the constitution anyway

I don't remember hearing about the thousands of back alley abortions being carried out in the 60s, 70s, 80s
was there a concerted campaign against unborn babies before the 8th was voted in?

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

Well I was thinking about the implied claim that even if we bring in abortion up to 12 weeks, many women will just go to the UK anyway after 12 weeks just because they can wait until later that way. Or that there would be pressure to align the Irish system with the UK because of those extra weeks.

IMO that is not the issue, but what might happen is that women won't feel safe using the Irish system (confidentiality and the risk of crazies turning up outside your house). I think I would need to be desperate before I'd risk it myself. But some women are desperate of course.

So yeah, I wasnt talking about costs in money terms, but more whether women might continue using the UK healthcare system even after abortion is legalized in Ireland. I think it will be more difficult, expensive and complicated for them to do so, but that some women will still prefer the anonymity and lack of judgmentalism of the UK, especially in the earaly months and maybe years, if problems arise in Ireland.

Whether that option will continue to be available to them in the longer term is another question, as I said.

The proposed 12-week limit for free abortion is lower than the corresponding limit in Great Britain, but it's not out of line with European norms. In most western European countries, abortions become significantly more difficult to get once you enter the second trimester. But that doesn't seem to lead to a flood of women from those countries going to Britain, and I doubt that it will in Ireland. Generally speaking, if you want an abortion, the sooner you have it the better, from every point of view, and there is no particular advantage in delaying it until the second trimester. Even in the UK, where the law does not encourage or require this, the overwhelming bulk of abortions happen in the first trimester.

I take the point that concerns about confidentiality and/or social attitudes might make women cautious about seeking an abortion locally, but I doubt that they will be faced with a simple binary of going to their regular GP, shared with their family members and neighbours, or going to Britain. There will surely be the option of going to GP practices or specialised clinics in other towns or cities in Ireland.

Zubeneschamali

Water John wrote: »

Iona ran the line, that William Binchy had expert experience on the law, in this area

He is certainly the man who has made the biggest mistake in the history of Constitutional Law in Ireland, so presumably he has learned the most from his mistakes.

Water John

Iona ran the line, that William Binchy had expert experience on the law, in this area and would be able to assist the learned judges. Absolutely impartial, of course.

Edward M

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

This time next year they won't have to.

Well let's hope so, but if you fear the neighbours gossiping then maybe its a way to avoid it.
Later terminations,will probably still have to though anyway.

Timberrrrrrrr

Edward M wrote: »

You could always still go to England!

This time next year they won't have to.

Edward M

volchitsa wrote: »

Doctor's secretary? Ours is shocking sometimes, with the personal information they either announce to the whole waiting room, or expect the person to announce, again in front of everyone.

Not to mention the chances of someone in the practice telling their best friend etc etc. Not saying it should happen, but it does - and concerning abortion women will be particularly worried about that, whether or not it's likely.

And even more so for any surgical intervention. Medical records sent to the GP afterwards too, perhaps?

Oh, and phone calls. In a small town a information can be gathered from hearing the secretary's phones calls - even when you dont want to!

You could always still go to England!

JDD

So go to another town? You not restricted to your local gp's office. Any gp will be able to prescribe the termination pill. Or don't tell the doctors secretary what you're booking the appointment for - say a sinus infection and tell the doctor when you get in there. And if you don't trust your gp not to blab about it, pick a new gp.

seamus

drkpower wrote: »

Mind you, this could strengthen the argument of the pro-life narrative that the 8th is the only thing maintaining any protection whatsoever for the unborn at all stages of gestation.

Obviously that is nonsense (the whole point of the referendum is to allow the Oireachtas to provide that protection via statute law) but it will be how it is spun.

Indeed, though it's a card they've already been playing, so it really just lets them play it a little harder.

I think the opposite outcome was their preferred. Not just because it would delay the referendum, but because it would also legitimise the "foetuses are people too" canard that they love to state, but have no factual basis for.

volchitsa

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Don't see why this would happen with a GP-led service. How would anyone else find out why you are going to the doctor, any more than with any medical issue?

Doctor's secretary? Ours is shocking sometimes, with the personal information they either announce to the whole waiting room, or expect the person to announce, again in front of everyone.

Not to mention the chances of someone in the practice telling their best friend etc etc. Not saying it should happen, but it does - and concerning abortion women will be particularly worried about that, whether or not it's likely.

And even more so for any surgical intervention. Medical records sent to the GP afterwards too, perhaps?

Oh, and phone calls. In a small town a information can be gathered from hearing the secretary's phones calls - even when you dont want to!

seamus

Call me Al wrote: »

Can someone enlighten me... what other constitutional rights could a foetus have had, beyond the right to life of the woman? Iona requested to have a voice heard in this case. What were they arguing for?

Functionally the argument was that the unborn had the same rights as a born child, which would include their right to security of a home, etc etc. It potentially had wide-ranging issues, including the state appointing a "advocate" to every pregnant woman to represent the legal rights of the unborn while in the womb, down to more mundane things like the payment of child benefit for children not yet born.

The argument being made in this case was that an illegal immigrant should not be deported because he had a child on the way, and that child's constitutional rights would be infringed by the deportation of its parent.

The judgement is still being read afaik, the judges have added a footnote that even though the unborn has no additional inherent rights, the authorities need to acknowledge in such cases that there will be a child in the near future who has constitutional rights that can be asserted, and that should be taken into account when it comes to enforcing deportation orders.

PhoenixParker

Call me Al wrote: »

Can someone enlighten me... what other constitutional rights could a foetus have had, beyond the right to life of the woman? Iona requested to have a voice heard in this case. What were they arguing for?

Well if you regard a fetus as completely equal to a baby child benefit & child support would start from the moment of conception, any woman experiencing a miscarriage would be entitled to full maternity leave. . .

Those are things I can think of. I'm sure there are more.

drkpower

seamus wrote: »

The Supreme Court has struck down the High Court's ruling:

The unborn does not have inherent constitutional rights outside the right to life in the 8th amendment.

The judges' decision was unanimous.

*Phew*!

Mind you, this could strengthen the argument of the pro-life narrative that the 8th is the only thing maintaining any protection whatsoever for the unborn at all stages of gestation.

Obviously that is nonsense (the whole point of the referendum is to allow the Oireachtas to provide that protection via statute law) but it will be how it is spun.

Call me Al

Can someone enlighten me... what other constitutional rights could a foetus have had, beyond the right to life of the woman? Iona requested to have a voice heard in this case. What were they arguing for?
Eta question answered after a little bit of research.

seamus

The Supreme Court has struck down the High Court's ruling:

The unborn does not have inherent constitutional rights outside the right to life in the 8th amendment.

The judges' decision was unanimous.

*Phew*!

Loafing Oaf

volchitsa wrote: »

IMO that is not the issue, but what might happen is that women won't feel safe using the Irish system (confidentiality and the risk of crazies turning up outside your house).

Don't see why this would happen with a GP-led service. How would anyone else find out why you are going to the doctor, any more than with any medical issue?

volchitsa

Well I was thinking about the implied claim that even if we bring in abortion up to 12 weeks, many women will just go to the UK anyway after 12 weeks just because they can wait until later that way. Or that there would be pressure to align the Irish system with the UK because of those extra weeks.

IMO that is not the issue, but what might happen is that women won't feel safe using the Irish system (confidentiality and the risk of crazies turning up outside your house). I think I would need to be desperate before I'd risk it myself. But some women are desperate of course.

So yeah, I wasnt talking about costs in money terms, but more whether women might continue using the UK healthcare system even after abortion is legalized in Ireland. I think it will be more difficult, expensive and complicated for them to do so, but that some women will still prefer the anonymity and lack of judgmentalism of the UK, especially in the earaly months and maybe years, if problems arise in Ireland.

Whether that option will continue to be available to them in the longer term is another question, as I said.

nozzferrahhtoo

volchitsa wrote: »

(Personally I'm okay with that, as the vast majority of abortions are carried out before that date anyway).

True. But I also suspect you mean the cost of the abortion ITSELF will be more expensive (potentially). But not the cost of the whole abortion experience when you factor in time off work, flights, accommodation (especially if the woman can not or does not wish to travel alone which doubles these expenses) and more?

Is it safe to suspect that many women would gladly pay more for the abortion itself, given the associated reduction in associated costs, mere convenience, and dealing with side effects medically or financially?

volchitsa

Abortion will of course continue to be available up to 24 weeks in the UK, but I think two things may change the ease of availability to Irish women in the future:

One is that currently because of the ban on abortion, Irish women are sometimes given cheaper (subsidized) rates. It's hard to see why that should continue if Ireland has similar abortion legislation to the rest of Europe, so in practice, abortion post 12 weeks would likely bemore expensive and complicated than at the moment. (Personally I'm okay with that, as the vast majority of abortions are carried out before that date anyway).

The other is unrelated to our legislation, and that is the UK leaving the EU. There are so many ways that will affect us that it would be unwise to assume that healthcare isn't one of them. In fact I think it is bound to be. And if Ireland has some level of abortion available, UK charities are not going to prioritize Irish women who just didn't get their act together in Ireland. Which is fair enough.