Outright lies in Campaign

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. That's what laws do. That's what governments are for: to allow laws to morph over time.

That's indeed what laws do, but constitutions are there to constrain or limit the laws that governments can make, or are there to enshrine rights that we think are too fundamental, e.g. freedom of expression, to have simple parliamentary majority be able change (whether that should include right to life of the unborn, even partially, is up for debate). Flexibility can be good. However, flexibility can be a double-edged sword.

The mistake we've made up until now is to prevent laws from morphing over time in response to the edge cases that have inevitably resulted from trying to encompass vastly complicated medical issues in terse paragraphs of constitutional law.

If lawmaking is kept where it belongs - with the legislature - then laws can adapt to changing circumstances and unintended consequences without the tedium and divisiveness of a referendum campaign each time. Yes, but arbitrary lines in time are well-established legal practice - legal drinking age, the right to vote, age of consent...

I'm not sure what the "changing circumstances" would be. Abortion regimes of varying levels of strictness/permissiveness have existed in many countries for decades. What the hard cases are are known.

The broad parameters for a legislative regime could be briefly sketched in the constitution (some exceptions/short clauses tagged onto the eighth). There are only a handful of parameters really:

• Do we allow an exception for foetal abnormalities? We could go with a wording to permit legislation for fatal foetal abnormalities, e.g. something like "conditions affecting the foetus that is likely to lead to the death of the foetus either before birth or shortly after birth", or a somewhat more permissive "serious foetal abnormalities" (also covering conditions like DS) or even just "foetal abormalities".
• Do we allow a rape exception?
• Do we allow an exception for a risk to the health of the mother. The status quo deals with cases of threat to the *life* and mental health by suicide. We could allow for "serious risk to the health of the mother" or a more permissive "risk to the health of the mother".
• Do we allow term limits, e.g. the Oireachtas may legislate for termination of life before X weeks?

All fairly broad parameters, with the likely usual deference from the courts, allowing a good deal of flexibility. However, depending on the choices of words you'll end up anything from a fairly restrictive abortion regime to quite a liberal one, and the Oireachtas can flesh out the details with legislation.

Are these big questions something we should just farm out to the Oireachtas for "flexibility"? You support abortion for either fatal foetal abnormalities, serious foetal abnormalities, just general foetal abnormalities or not at all. After that, the fine details can be left to the Oireachtas. Leaving the broad parameters to the Oireachtas is IMO a bit of a copy out, especially when fairly fundamental rights like right to life are involved. If we're going to make exceptions, then let's at least set out the broad parameters for that before then farming the issue out to the Oireachtas.

Can you imagine a child having a different set of human rights depending on whether it was conceived in the course of a rape? The adult child of a rapist being denied the right to vote, let's say? Some arbitrary distinctions make objective sense; others less so. Not just on that basis, no. We disagree on whether it should have a constitutional basis, and as to on what it depends.

Earlier you were using the bodily autonomy argument where you used the words "people can be forced to have a pregnancy they don't want". If one accepts bodily autonomy as a principle, then surely a pregnant rape victim is the most extreme example? When people have sex, even with contraception, there's always a certain probability of pregnancy. A woman can't be entirely surprised if she becomes pregnant. A raped woman, on the other hand, has never given consent to be pregnant. If there's ever a case where bodily autonomy overrides a foetus' right to life, surely it is in such cases?

Your argument seems to be that this exception treats foetuses unequally, which is true. But if we start going down the route at all where bodily autonomy can sometimes trump the unborn's right to life then these are inevitably the sorts of areas we end up in. We can then "equalize" the situation by allowing abortion without such exceptions, but is this really a better situation?

And on risk to the health of the mother, going to the government's Heads of Bill, there's a provision for "serious risk of harm to the health of the pregnant woman" (a bit more strongly worded than the earlier "risk to the health of the pregnant woman" in the policy paper). So what advantage would having words like "serious risk to the health of the woman" actually in the constitution be?

Well, firstly, it couldn't easily be changed (it would, as you say, have to go through the "the tedium and divisiveness of a referendum campaign"). Secondly, the consequent legislation would be much more likely ensure and enforce this. The current Heads of Bill is modelled pretty much after the UK system with two signatures needed (one normally the obstetrician carrying out the abortion, or his/her designate, and also another appropriate medic, which is defined in the policy paper to be anyone on the medical register). There's a danger of a conflict of interest there, e.g. a woman goes to an abortion clinic and those signing off are two medics working there. If we were serious about ensuring "serious risk to the health of the woman", then IMO such questions should be decided by proper independent statutory panels with appropriate review and appeal mechanisms (and composed of psychiatrists for mental health cases). Maybe we'll end up with this, but there's no guarantee, and it doesn't sound like it from the Heads of Bill. At least with wording like "serious threat to health of the woman" in the constitution, certain standards have to be met (legislation can be judicially reviewed etc.) plus the wording cannot be watered down over time.

IMO, if one thinks the unborn should have at least a partial or circumscribed right to life, then the broad parameters for that should be in the constitution. I don't believe this would be as complex or unworkable as is often portrayed.

finbar10 wrote: »

Sure. Even the eighth itself talks about "as far as is practicable". I won't disagree with much of the above.

I think people misunderstand what is meant "by as far as is practicable". It doesn't mean as far as is considered reasonable, or as far as is considered appropriate; it means as far as can be done within the available means.

And considering the "as far as is practicable" is in relation to the obligations of the State to protect the unborn's right to life, it means whatever the state can do to protect the unborn's rights, it must do to protect the unborn's rights. And the state has within its means the power to do a lot. That's why the courts found that the 8th could be used to prevent the distribution of information about abortion, or prevent someone having an abortion abroad.

So if you believe life begins at conception, there is plenty the state could do, as far as practicable, to enforce the right to life at conception.

That you are content that they don't do this, means you are satisfied that the rights and protections of the unborn rests with the legislature, not the constitution.

finbar10 wrote: »

However, we are not even voting on an explicit 12-week constitutional term limit, which would at least guarantee certain protections; we are voting to make this purely a legislative matter. Maybe it'll be 12 weeks this year, but 10 years down the road? Who knows.

The international practice is that when a country sets an on-request time-frame, it sticks to it. Greece has been at 12 weeks since 1984; Luxembourg since 1978; Denmark since 1973. That's 45 years.

What's more it's our own experience that politicians are very reluctant to change abortion laws. It took us 20 years to legislate just for the X Case, and that was about when a woman's life was at risk!

In 10 years time, it is very likely that we'll still be at 12 weeks. But if it has been changed, it will have been after a LOT of media and public scrutiny; it won't happen unknown to the electorate. And if the electorate don't like the change, they have a number of options open to them to change it back, some even before it takes effect.

finbar10 wrote: »

Well, in lots of countries a "restrictive" regime was initially introduced, and down the line it became a lot more permissive (before and after stated term limits).

How many countries have increased the time frames of their on request model? Because that's what you're saying will happen here; Ireland will start at 12 weeks and then politicians will change it.

I can only find one example: when France went from 10 weeks to 12 weeks back in 2001. But that doesn't help your argument, because the 10 weeks was in place since 1979, and the 12 weeks has been in place for 17 years at this point.

But I can't find any other example of it happening. And one country doing it after 22 years, and even then by only a matter of weeks to bring it into line with the EU norm, helps my point, not yours.

finbar10 wrote: »

Germany's abortion rate is actually still relatively low (places like France and the UK would have 2.5-3 times the rate), which probably is at least partly attributable to constitutional constraints (limits the loosening up).

Germany's timeframes for on-request and France's are both 12 weeks. I don't see how the constitutional status of their laws can have a noteiceable effect on the rates; it's not as if that's going to be any kind of factor in a woman's decision.

And from what I can see Germany's rate is similar to that of the Netherlands; which has no constitutional constraints AND allows abortion on request up to approximately 22 weeks. So it seems constitutional status has little if any bearing on the matter.

finbar10 wrote: »

People don't tend to vote for parties on the basis of constitutional issues anyway. It's usually a choice between tweedle dum and dweedle dee on more immediate (often financial) issues. There are lots of things people would probably support in a referendum if given the chance, e.g. citizens initative mechanisms got good support in the citizens convention and assembly. In theory, people could vote for a party that promised to bring these in. Same for other potential political reforms (change to the voting system; changes to other structures; stronger local government). Never likely to happen though (mostly pie in the sky unfortunately).

I'm not sure how this is a response to my comment. The fact remains that if there is sufficient opposition to a proposed future change to our abortion laws, then it won't happen. And the people don't need to wait until election time either, as we saw with the u-turn on the ownership of the new national maternity hospital.

The One Doctor wrote:

Vote Yes for Compassion? Yeah, killing a foetus is very compassionate. Vote Yes for Dignity? Nothing dignified about abortion.

I think you should read In Her Shoes to see where the compassion and dignity come in. Neither are lies.

Rodin wrote: »

Regarding lies from the repeal campaign, I find the lie that were the laws different in this country that Savita Halapannavar would have lived to be abhorent.

That tragic young woman's death was a missed sepsis as so many cases of sepsis in the country are. Her death has been hijacked by the pro-choice campaign.

A termination would not have saved her as the staff in charge had not recognised how ill she was before it was too late.

Rodin wrote: »

........

A termination would not have saved her .

How would you know ?

Qualifications ?

Access to relevant records ?

As we have seen repeatedly, the word of many Irish front line health workers isn't worth jack when they get it wrong and get caught out



I doubt this one put in her notes " battered non-verbal autistic pt x2 "

Prof Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran :

Savita Halappanavar died as a direct result of Ireland's restrictive abortion laws and not simply because she contracted sepsis, the author of the independent report into her death has said.

Anybody, any junior doctor, would have said this is a sepsis condition, we must terminate.

"She did have sepsis. However, if she had a termination in the first days as requested, she would not have had sepsis. If she had the termination when asked for it, the sepsis would not arise.

"We would never have heard of her and she would be alive today," he said.

.

NuMarvel wrote: »

How many countries have increased the time frames of their on request model? Because that's what you're saying will happen here; Ireland will start at 12 weeks and then politicians will change it.

I can only find one example: when France went from 10 weeks to 12 weeks back in 2001. But that doesn't help your argument, because the 10 weeks was in place since 1979, and the 12 weeks has been in place for 17 years at this point.

But I can't find any other example of it happening. And one country doing it after 22 years, and even then by only a matter of weeks to bring it into line with the EU norm, helps my point, not yours.

Actually that seems to be a fair point. AFAIK a lot of countries initially introduced limited abortion for the "hard cases", limited to rape/incest/serious threat to health etc. and then in a later liberalizing period widened the access (with "on demand" up to so many weeks). You seem to be right on the number of weeks for "on demand" doesn't seem to have changed in many places once it has come in at all. And, come to think of it, our proposal of "no reason" abortion to 12 weeks is fairly liberal even in European terms (so perhaps there'd be no further impetus to move this later).

There's a fair bit of variation though in availability after the first trimester. In some countries it's effectively quite easy to get, though notionally it's supposed to be quite restricted, e.g. the UK. However, in some countries post-trimester abortion is actually quite hard to get, e.g. Switzerland and apparently Germany (though I haven't been able to find explicit second trimester and beyond stats for there).

Good point about the Netherlands, which seems to have one of the lowest rates in Europe though a very liberal regime. Obviously cultural factors are as important as availability. However, there are plenty of liberal setups with very high abortion percentages also, and Switzerland with effectively a fairly restrictive regime after the first trimester is one of the lowest for countries with abortion (though again I suspect cultural factors come into play there too).

In many countries, the abortion percentage was quite low on introduction and gradually climbed over the next ten to twenty years (and often further on further liberalization) and also the interpretation of those laws (e.g. the percentages of doctor refusals to terminate under various grounds went down over time).

Germany's timeframes for on-request and France's are both 12 weeks. I don't see how the constitutional status of their laws can have a noteiceable effect on the rates; it's not as if that's going to be any kind of factor in a woman's decision.

And from what I can see Germany's rate is similar to that of the Netherlands; which has no constitutional constraints AND allows abortion on request up to approximately 22 weeks. So it seems constitutional status has little if any bearing on the matter.

In Germany, the constitutional fudge (decriminalization rather than actual legalization) means it isn't generally covered by public health insurance (except for serious threat to health or rape, and the Lander do cover it for the very lowest socio-economic groups) so people generally have to pay for it themselves. Also there's the mandatory pre-abortion counselling and delay period to try to persuade the woman to pursue other options. And seemingly after the first trimester is not that easy to obtain. Perhaps these have some impact. Also cultural reasons must come into play. Seemingly, abortion rates in the East are still higher than the West (probably a legacy of the views of abortion very much as contraception in the former communist states).

I'm not sure how this is a response to my comment. The fact remains that if there is sufficient opposition to a proposed future change to our abortion laws, then it won't happen. And the people don't need to wait until election time either, as we saw with the u-turn on the ownership of the new national maternity hospital.

Just that the influence of the electorate on a specific issue on politicians is much weaker than say at a referendum on the issue. People elect their politicians based on a whole mish-mash of issues. Maybe there'll be some pressure put on TDs from the hard-cores on either side, but I don't imagine it'll be all that great, and will get lost amongst all the other issues, and TDs will mostly want to keep their heads down and not alienate any voters on this divisive issue. Anyway, media and journalists seem mostly pretty pro-choice as a group (any suggestions for further liberalization probably getting an easier ride than the converse when referendum balance requirements no longer hold).

Anyway, I expect something very like Simon Harris' bill will be passed into law if this referendum is passed. Notionally, this might be fairly restrictive after 12 weeks: needs "serious threat to the health of the pregnant woman" (the inclusion of "serious" does indicate perhaps a higher threshold than the UK for physical or mental health). However, if we end up what's in the Heads of Bill (a UK-like two signature system), a lot will depend on its actual interpretation and implementation on the ground. "Mental health" grounds, though remaining unchanged on paper, have gotten a lot laxer in several countries (particularly our nearest neighbour). Ireland does tend to have a history of no shortage of laws that look good on paper but that are just not really enforced or implemented much (if the will isn't there).

finbar10 wrote: »

Actually that seems to be a fair point. AFAIK a lot of countries initially introduced limited abortion for the "hard cases", limited to rape/incest/serious threat to health etc. and then in a later liberalizing period widened the access (with "on demand" up to so many weeks). You seem to be right on the number of weeks for "on demand" doesn't seem to have changed in many places once it has come in at all. And, come to think of it, our proposal of "no reason" abortion to 12 weeks is fairly liberal even in European terms (so perhaps there'd be no further impetus to move this later).

In European terms, 12 weeks is the very much the norm. 23 other European countries have an on request aspect to their abortion laws, and 15 of them set the timeframe at 12 weeks. You might think 12 weeks itself is liberal, but in the context of our European neighbours, our proposed laws aren't overly liberal or expansive.

What's more none of those countries have moved beyond 12 weeks, and like I said earlier, many of them have been at 12 weeks for decades.

finbar10 wrote: »

In many countries, the abortion percentage was quite low on introduction and gradually climbed over the next ten to twenty years (and often further on further liberalization) and also the interpretation of those laws (e.g. the percentages of doctor refusals to terminate under various grounds went down over time).

Official abortion rates will always increase upon liberalisation, because they are comparing recorded abortions, not actual abortions. The abortion rate in Ireland will definitely increase, because a) most Irish residents have abortions outside Ireland, and b) the majority of abortions that happen in Ireland are unrecorded.

But what research from WHO and the UN shows is that criminalisation and legal status doesn't have a significant impact on rates. Regions that don't allow abortion have similar rates to those that do.

finbar10 wrote: »

Just that the influence of the electorate on a specific issue on politicians is much weaker than say at a referendum on the issue. People elect their politicians based on a whole mish-mash of issues. Maybe there'll be some pressure put on TDs from the hard-cores on either side, but I don't imagine it'll be all that great, and will get lost amongst all the other issues, and TDs will mostly want to keep their heads down and not alienate any voters on this divisive issue.

We managed to overturn water charges without a referendum. We managed to overturn changes to medical cards and the ownership of the new national maternity hospital without a referendum or an election. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples that I'm missing.

The influence of the electorate can be felt at any time, for any reason. If anything, a referendum is the worst way to do it, because it's politicians, not the electorate that have the final say on when a referendum is held and what the question is.

finbar10 wrote: »

Anyway, I expect something very like Simon Harris' bill will be passed into law if this referendum is passed. Notionally, this might be fairly restrictive after 12 weeks: needs "serious threat to the health of the pregnant woman" (the inclusion of "serious" does indicate perhaps a higher threshold than the UK for physical or mental health). However, if we end up what's in the Heads of Bill (a UK-like two signature system), a lot will depend on its actual interpretation and implementation on the ground. "Mental health" grounds, though remaining unchanged on paper, have gotten a lot laxer in several countries (particularly our nearest neighbour). Ireland does tend to have a history of no shortage of laws that look good on paper but that are just not really enforced or implemented much (if the will isn't there).

In practice, when women who need an abortion can access abortion early, they will access abortion early, as we can see throughout Europe.

Look at France, Sweden and the UK for example. France is on request up to 12 weeks, Sweden on request up to 18 weeks, and the UK on health grounds up 24 weeks. All different laws and timeframes, yet in each case, more than 90% of women have an abortion before 12 weeks.

What's more, due to advances in medicine and changes in access to that medication, more and more abortions are happening earlier in the pregnancy. In the UK 81% of abortions in 2016 were before the 10th week. That's up from 68% in 2006, ten years earlier. In 2002 (the earliest I can find), it was 57%.

No matter what the laws actually say or how they're interpreted, the vast majority of abortions will happen within the on request timeframe. And due to medical advancements and increased access, that proportion will only go up, not down. Which, as an aside, is probably why none of our European neighbours are considering increasing the on-request timeframes.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

My own personal response to your questions. Yes to number 1, absolutely no to number 2. Go again!

You are left wing, pro open borders, anti national

Overheal wrote: »

How does the unborn suffer? Especially in the first timester?

What about the second and third trimester ?

From what I know of the procedure I honestly think it would be more compassionate of us if we were to allow babies at that stage to be born and then euthanize them humanely immediately after the birth.

At least that way we know they’re not suffering.

I’m not advocating for this by the way although I do support euthanasia as a concept. I’m just suggesting that it might be a more humane way of eliminating the fetus then aborting it late term as happens in many countries now.

Help!!!! wrote: »

I would say the majority of YES campaigners have 2 things in common
1: Been to uni/3rd level education
2: Socialist/communist leaning

If you are on the YES campaign just for 1 minute forget about what you've been told/taught & think
1: Why are all the political parties in agreement when they usually cant agree on anything
2: Do we really want private run businesses whose sole purpose is to make money aborting foetuses
Numerous examples that they are more interested in aborting than saving the child.

1) They're not. FF and FG are both internally split on this. The last referendum all the parties agreed on was the marriage equality referendum.

2) Most women who need abortions will be interacting with a local GP or family planning clinic, and the remaining abortions will happen within existing hospital facilities. There won't be any market opportunity for a business to set up for the sole purpose of providing abortions.

Also:
I'm not university educated (but working on it)
I'm more pragmatist than socialist/communist. But I do like being social .

Help!!!! wrote: »

Yes there are a mix on both sides but I find most of the rabid YES side are uni/3rd level educated brainwashed into thinking socialism/communism is the way to go. An illness imported from America

Who died because of the 8th amendment?

You really think abortions are going to be done in an already overworked/underfunded HSE? The abortion clinics from the UK/USA will be hovering around at the minute waiting to put in bids

Odd you use America as an example given the massive interference on the No side by Americans...

To answer your question, I'm going to cut the crap and not play along with where it's going to lead. https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/nimtreport50278.pdf

What's so strenuous about prescribing c.3,000 courses of abortion pills? Would 2,000 surgical abortions (judging by UK stats, where nearly 40% of abortions are classed as "surgical") really stretch the HSE to breaking point?

Help!!!! wrote: »

& no interference on the YES side?
No money from Open Borders ( Soros )?

I find it funny how you all believe that all abortions will be done within our HSE

Ah okay, you're one of those posters that will be proven wrong repeatedly so will jump around with your point like a hare on crack.

Help!!!! wrote: »

I find it funny how you all believe that all abortions will be done within our HSE

I don’t get this either.

The HSE is on its knees and still falling..

This is a wet dream for private clinics..

They already have the figures and they know the demand is there..

Of course they’ll set up shop..