The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

This post has been deleted.

Damien360 wrote: »

I stand corrected. Delighted. Will that go to the wording in referendum ?

This is the proposed wording and a rough proposal of the legislation to come after.

The wording

Taking TDs through the bill, he said it included two sections and a schedule. The wording of the proposed constitutional amendment is as follows:

Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy

The short policy paper, which the minister published today affirms the following:

That termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a risk to the health (which would include risk to the life) of a pregnant woman would be provided for in the General Scheme.

That there will be distinction between a risk to the physical or mental health of a woman.

That two medical practitioners will be required to assess access to termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a risk to the health of a pregnant woman.

One medical practitioner can permit to terminate a pregnancy where an emergency risk to health arises.

That termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a fetal condition which is likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth would be provided for

That two medical practitioners would be required to enable access to termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a fetal condition which is likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth.

That termination of pregnancy up to 12 weeks of pregnancy without specific indication will be permitted

That a time period would be required to elapse between the initial assessment by a medical practitioner and the a termination of pregnancy being carried out.

That termination of pregnancy for a fetal condition likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth or for maternal health should not have a gestational limit in the General Scheme.

That the definition of appropriate medical practitioners in the legislation would include all registered medical practitioners on the Medical Council register.

The legislation will require that a termination of pregnancy should be certified by the appropriate medical practitioner(s) in all cases.

The General Scheme will require that the termination of pregnancy be notified to the Minister for Health by the appropriate medical practitioner.

The law will include provision for a formal review process for a woman in certain defined circumstances. It is noted that Section 10 of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 established a formal mechanism whereby a woman can seek a review of the clinical assessment made by the original treating medical practitioner or team where their assessment is that the woman does not require a termination, or when the woman has been unable to obtain an opinion in this regard.

Conscientious objection in line with that provided for in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 will be allowed so as to provide a right to conscientious objection for medical and nursing personnel.

A clause confirming that nothing in the legislation would limit or interfere with the right to travel or to information will be included.

That termination of pregnancy would be lawful in the circumstances set out in the grounds provided for in the new legislation, but it will retain the offence of intentional destruction of the unborn in defined circumstances.

A woman who procures or seeks to procure a termination of pregnancy for herself would not be guilty of an offence.

That the Minister for Health will publish an annual report of terminations of pregnancy in the preceding year

The HSE must also be prepared to report each year of reviews undertaken in the preceding year in defined circumstances, and will include the number of reviews carried out and the outcomes of the reviews. These reports will be submitted to the Minister for Health for publication.

That provision for consent similar to that contained in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 would be provided in the new legislation.

That the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 would be repealed in full.

Bonniedog wrote: »

Ismisejack wrote: »

Wow never came across such a snob in my relatively short life, well I’m 22 so I’ll be able vote against repeal for a long time yet! How u like that?! There’s is nothing backwards about being anti abortion it’s indeed progressive as there is much more progressive ways of dealing with crisis pregnancies than child murdering. When referendum day comes and the eighth is retained I can’t wait to see the face on snobs like you

I wonder what Gandalf's view is on their theocratic buddy Dr. Selim proposing that Irish hospitals legally carry out the torture and mutilation of little girls?

Left was curiously silent on that.

Because that dibnt happen
More hate posts by queen of hate posting

This post has been deleted.

This post has been deleted.

Discodog wrote: »

The photo on the front page of the Sunday Times is so wrong. A nine year old child carrying a big red heart. On it is written "I'm Prolife because there's always a better answer than abortion".

This is child abuse. It's using a child in the way that a beggar would. The child has no concept about the subject. The hypocrisy of protecting life & abusing a child.

In fairness, some Repeal campaigners aren’t much better in that regard. I certainly saw some putting words in their very young children’s mouths whilst posting photos of them on social media. I just think children should be left out of it on both sides. It’s manipulative nonsense.

January wrote: »

I'm not sure how you think a nine year old has no concept about the subject? Why do you say that.

It’s so so young. Let children be innocent and give them space and time to form their own opinions on the matter. Critical thinking faculties need to be developed first.

January wrote: »

I don't think it's so young. Especially if it's explained in an age appropriate way, and it can be. Mine have asked about it because I wear my repeal jumper a lot and help run the local pro-choice group so go to meetings often.

There’s no harm in answering questions, of course. But I just would be wary of people indoctrinating kids either way. And putting words in their months like people on both sides sometimes do is really tasteless. That’s not giving them the breathing room to parse the issue for themselves. Children are developing mentally. Give them unbiased information and let them form their own worldview.

Are you really serious? A child can definitely understand things when it's explained to them simply.

Fatal fetal abnormality = the baby is very sick in the mother's belly and will not survive outside of it.

Rape = when someone forces someone to have sex with them against their will (and yes, I have spoken to my child about rape, I may not have called it rape but she knows about it, I have younger kids too and will discuss it with them when I feel they're ready too)

We haven't discussed incest yet but I'm sure it will come.

She knows that some women do not want to remain pregnant and that there are a myriad of reasons for that such as the above cases and also because of possibly financial implications or that they just don't want to have children and that currently women who don't want to, or can't remain pregnant, are forced to go to England so they can have either pills or an operation to remove the fetus from the womb and she knows that there is a referendum coming up about it.

I'm not saying my child is a genius but she understands the process of abortion and what may cause a woman to have one. It's not that hard to understand.