What kind of abortion legislation ought we expect?

Anyone for the thought experiment:

If the exit poll said 75% of people not in favor of a.o.r. up to 12 weeks, ought the government proceed with the introduction of a.o.r. up to 12 weeks

Come all ye demo-crats, joyful and triumphant!

captainspeed wrote: »

The Government will get crucified if they don't at any subsequent election, such is the size of the mandate for yes.

The mandate is to legislate. If 50% of the electorate is contra- abortion on request, then the government might expect to get crucified by that cohort. They are facing people who might resent not being given an option to deal with the hard cases only. People who were forced into a difficult decision. It's only 20% more crucifixion that is already coming their way.

Since they are damned if they do legislate for a.o.r. as advertised and damned if they don't, might they figure out a way to extract most votes by watering down?

Remembering that it's most votes that matter to them. How could they get most votes.

I don't think there will be a problem getting the legislation passed, FF deputies (even on the 'no' side) will not block the passage of the legislation through the Dáil.

There's a while to go yet. Certainly, you have the basis of a campaign aimed at influencing the outcome.

There's little doubt people were torn: they wanted the hard cases dealt with but wavered on a.o.r. Many fell down on the YES side.

Would these be happy to have their cake and eat it: hard cases / late term difficult cases dealth with and watered down a.o.r.?

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

After weeks of being told the only poll that matters is the one in the ballot box, it seems pretty weird to be putting sudden faith in a tag-along question* on an exit poll.

A question that wasn't on the ballot, wasn't directly debated, and that we have no idea of the context it was asked in (specific text/tone of a poll question and the previous layer of questions all have an influence on answers).

* The 'question' referred to above appeared in RTE's Referendum Exit Poll results. It sought to find out whether people (on all sides) were in favour of abortion-on-request. Only 52% said they were. In other words, the nation is seemingly split down the middle on this, the most significant (in terms of numbers of abortions attaching to it) element of the Constitutional amendment and the Government's proposed legislation.

You are right to say the question wasn't on the ballot. You are right to say it wasn't directly debated. There is a reason why such a key issue wasn't attended to during the campaign, why it was buried like a piece of bad news on the day of an earthquake.

Read on.




The Ballot Box as a means to a pre-defined end

The only people who were saying the "ballot box is the only thing that matters" were the people who wanted a "Yes" answer and gave us a ballot box by which to deliver it. In other words: the political top brass.


Let's look as some facts outside the vote, as best we know them:

- in the midst of this process, it became fairly clear that a lot of people, whilst believing there ought be legislation to deal with hard cases, were torn on the matter of abortion on request.

- although pre-voting polls are/were inaccurate, the exit poll managed to nail the result more or less on the head. Although it may not be bang-on accurate, it does give us the only indication we have regarding the peoples view on abortion on request.


It is not the fault of the people that a view expressed during the campaign and exit poll, couldn't be expressed in the ballot. Indeed, it appears the people were to be considered sheeple, for the purposes of this referendum. That a "Yes" vote was the answer required by political top brass.




How does one influence a poll?


Government/political leaders are the ones sitting at the starting point of all this of this. They are the ones who decide if and when a referendum is to be put to the people. That is but one string that can be pulled. But of course, it doesn't look well to be seen to be pulling strings: hence the idea of not campaigning as a party, to allow a "vote of conscience", etc.

Whatever about such fig leafs, strings do need to be pulled. So they ship the question "offshore" to a non-elected, non-representative "Citizen's" Assembly.

"Citizen's Assembly??" you ask. "Where the heck did the idea of a Citizen's Assembly come from? And who decided that that was a democracy-enabling tool??"

Well Citizen, the motion to constitute a Citizens Assembly (back in 2016) was put forth by Fine Gael Senator Jerry Buttimer. It's task, ostensibly, was to set about dealing with Five Big Issues.

Note which issue is top of the list - for first up gives you a big clue as to why the "Citizens" Assembly was being constituted at all - if one is inclined towards suspicion.

(i) the eighth amendment of the Constitution;

(ii) how we best respond to the challenges and opportunities of an ageing population;

(iii) fixed term parliaments; and

(iv) the manner in which referenda are held; and

(v) how the State can make Ireland a leader in tackling climate change;

Did you spot the bonus clue? Read Citizens Assembly Very Important Priority Task No. 4 again. Yup: task No. 4 should have been task No.1 - not least to establish whether a Citizens Assembly was appropriate to "the manner in which referenda are held".

By now you should be formulating the notion that Nail The 8th was what this was all about. That the other 4 Big Issues have been pulled randomly from a hat in order to act as wrapping paper for the actual motive.

If not, read on...



Who is this Jerry Buttimer anyway?

Well, he's a high ranking Fine Gael Senator who goes on to campaign for Repeal the 8th, is who he is. Back in 2014 though, Jerry is giving us insight into his embryonic thinking. Blue sky thinking which ultimately births his motion for a "Citizens" Assembly.

Jerry-the-Democrat? wrote:

"What is clear now is that we have to have a proper national debate around this and to hold that debate in a mature, clear, and focused manner, devoid of politics.”

A national debate "devoid of politics" becomes a "Citizen's" Assembly of a mere 100 people. Now Jerry is very taken with his low birthweight brainchild. So is everyone else apparently.

They decide that there is no need to let this new, Wunderkind aid to democracy crawl, then toddle, then walk. Not a bit of it! Jerry's wax n' feathers version is going land on the Sun itself. It is going to be set to work on one of the most contentious issues facing the country - wearing the asbestos suit of political imperative.

(If ever there was an idea that ought to be subjected to abortion on request up to 12 weeks, then Jerry's idea is it. Except there was no request from political top brass. They dearly wanted this child to be born - even if, one suspects, it can't be expected to survive for very long after birth)



Getting the right answer

Having been around the block in a few referenda, where the wrong answer was given by the electorate, the way to deal with this "Citizens" Assembly is well known. It's simple: keep on balloting until you get the answer you want.

In the first ballot, 87% of the members voted that Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution should not be retained in full. (Strike 1)

In the second ballot, 56% of the Members voted that Article 40.3.3 should be amended or replaced. (Strike 2)

In the third ballot, 57% of the Members recommended that Article 40.3.3 be replaced with a Constitutional provision explicitly authorising the Oireachtas to address termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn and any rights of the pregnant woman. In other words, it would be a matter for the Oireachtas to decide how to legislate on these issues. (Home Run!)

One wonders how one hundred everyday individuals (ranging from doctors to bin men) manage to independently arrive at such a complex series of ballot options. Without their being led by the nose in that direction by people far more conversant in matters political than they are.




Anyway...

The (sonorously titled) "Citizens" Assembly is interesting in the context of your post. We have an RTE referendum exit poll of 4000 people in the setting of their just-having-voted. The exit poll goes on to nail the final result so can be seen as a guide of sorts.

"Pooh-pooh" you say.

Yet you seem content that 100 people(!) form a representative sample fit to establish:

a) the basis of the wording on the referendum voting slip

b) the basis of the legislation proposed by the Government.


You are not alone:

TDs and Senators have been urged to treat the recommendations of the Citizens’ Assembly on abortion “with the respect and due consideration they deserve” by chairwoman Ms Justice Mary Laffoy.

And the political top brass, surprise, surprise, trip over themselves to oblige. In a further nod to offshore politics they establish an Oireachtas Joint Committee to soberly reflect on the output of the Citizens Assembly. Sounds impressive doesn't it. Just like 'Citizens Assembly' sounds impressive.

That last bastion of neutral journalism - The Irish Times wrote:

‘Pro-choice’ senator elected chair of abortion committee

Fine Gael Senator Catherine Noone has been elected chairwoman of the Oireachtas abortion committee, which met for the first time on Wednesday in private. The committee will meet again in two weeks. Ms Noone was the only nominee.

Only nominee? By a whisker. There's that Yes-man popping up again (my parentheses)

Fine Gael’s Senator [Pro-Choice]Jerry Buttimer had been tipped to become chairman, partly because he led the Oireachtas [Joint] committee that held hearings on the [abortion liberalizing]Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill four years ago.

If you find the 2013 shoe fits, then you simply rinse and repeat.

However, to have Jerry-The-Democrat chair this Joint Committee would be to join some of the dots on a child's puzzle, making the picture all to too clear to anyone inclined to look. So the committee is duly established with Jerry II at the helm (with Jerry-The-Democrat thrown a bone in being made a member of it).

Members Pro-Choice: 15
Members Pro-life = 6

Conveniently, if democratically stacked, it's function:

One of the main tasks of the the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, chaired by Senator Catherine Noone of Fine Gael, will be to formulate the wording of the referendum to be held next year.

.

..having paid due consideration and respect to Jerry-the-Democrat (a.k.a. The "Citizens" Assembly)



-


"Yes" set the agenda and, via not-so circuitous route, brought about a form of words to the people. That form of words sidestepped the possibility of an answer on the most significant issue of the entire campaign: whether or not abortion on request.

In so far as there was a true Citizens Assembly, it voiced it's concerns all the way though the campaign and outed those concerns in the exit poll. This particular Citizens Assembly was exposed to the fullest array of issues: opinions from medics, ethicists, lawyers, people directly impacted, religious leaders, lobby groups, politicians, society around them, the world outside. It had an exhaustive (and exhausting) chance to reflect. And reflect it did in an ultimately telling way: split on the issue of abortion on request.

Democracy would have been interested in taking account of them. Democracy would looked for a middle road between the two extremes.



The only indication of this Great Deception? A question asked, per chance, by the our national broadcaster, RTE (about the only remotely neutral media outlet operating during this entire process).