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

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

recedite

Overheal wrote: »

You’re trying to tell me that deranged woman on the Sky interview was correct in suggesting only 3% of pregnancies in the UK end in a live birth??? Please clarify and substantiate.

No idea who you are talking about, but I already gave the link to the official UK 97% statistic in post # 7072, and I also quoted from the document.

Pherekydes

recedite wrote: »

No idea who you are talking about, but I already gave the link to the official UK 97% statistic in post # 7072, and I also quoted from the document.

Overheal is quoting Sarah Louise Mulligan, who said, somewhat incoherently, "...97% of babies who are aborted, has been proven [sic] insassistics [sic] as discussed on RTE..."

But this is the key stat from the official document alluded to by recedite:

"In 2016, 97% of abortions (180,794) were undertaken under ground C."

I think it's just an understandable misunderstanding of SLM's ramblings.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

I've been looking at the figure 8 lately [as in it being the numeral before the amendment] ad wonder at the likeess betwee it's shape and a set of manacles or cuffs applied to women and girls in general here

You wouldn't be the first to think that.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/art-and-design/motherhood-is-a-choice-artists-respond-to-repeal-the-eighth-1.2992845

Shackled, by Dearbhla Kelly
I had this idea knocking around my head for a while of the ‘8’ as a set of handcuffs shackling a pair of desperate hands, which could represent so many people affected by the Eighth – women forced to travel for abortion, women who don’t have the means to, doctors and midwives whose hands are tied by the constitution.

PopePalpatine

I'm surprised the LoveBoaters didn't adapt Trump's slogan into "Keep Ireland Gr8".

aloyisious

Simon Harris met people from the TFMR group on Friday during which the possibility of the state paying the travel costs to Britain of the women concerned for terminations in cases of FFA was discussed if the women receive a diagnosis that their babies will not survive. Apparently Mr Harris is exploring the payment with his Dept officials.

Separately Stephen Donnelly of FF and SF's Louise O'Reilly are reported to have called for legislation around of issues which could be immediately addressed. Mr Donnelly submitted a bill earlier this week asking for a change to some of the restrictions around abortion but is holding back on it after Mr Harris asked his Dept to focus on the main legislation in the coming week. Mr Donnelly has suggested two measures that can be taken; the repeal of the 1995 Act governing the provision of information and section 22 of the 2013 Act could be repealed now as that would end criminalisation.

The above is in the online edition of the irish Examiner. https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/state-may-pay-for-travel-to-britain-in-cases-of-fatal-foetal-diagnosis-471397.html

The Information Act of 1995. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1995/act/5/enacted/en/print.html

POLDPA: Destruction of unborn human life

22. (1) It shall be an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life.

(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, or both.

(3) A prosecution for an offence under this section may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I would imagine that the notion that the state directly fund/provide funds for abortion travel costs would excite opponents to abortion, regardless of the probable grounds mooted for such provision.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

Simon Harris met people from the TFMR group on Friday during which the possibility of the state paying the travel costs to Britain of the women concerned for terminations in cases of FFA ..

Seems strange to be funding something that was unconstitutional in Ireland last week.
But when you think about it, its a no-brainer for Minister Harris.
It saves him having to legislate during his (long) summer hols.
And it saves adding to the workload of the Irish public health service. I think waiting lists for public patients are at around 2 years at this stage for most non-life threatening procedures, and the last thing he wants to see is more patients being added. It suits much better to continue outsourcing to the UK's NHS for the moment.
"Irish women in crisis pregnancies will never again be forced to make the journey to England" was a great soundbyte alright.

antiskeptic

aloyisious wrote: »

I would imagine that the notion that the state directly fund/provide funds for abortion travel costs would excite opponents to abortion, regardless of the probable grounds mooted for such provision.

Excite? It'll probably make them yawn. I've been asking Yes-sirs I've encountered since d'Landslide how many citizens made up the "Citizens" Assembly only to be faced with blank looks. If I said 10 instead of 100 it wouldn't have raised any more of a query in their minds (bar 1, who did respond with a "hmmm??)

When folk are asleep, and they've indicated in vast numbers that they are asleep, you don't get excited about it.

Better to keep schtum, head down to Paddy Powers for a bet that the switcharound in "previously unknown freedoms under the 8th" won't make an appearance in our news media.

Not that Paddy Powers are that thick.

aloyisious

antiskeptic wrote: »

Excite? It'll probably make them yawn. I've been asking Yes-sirs I've encountered since d'Landslide how many citizens made up the "Citizens" Assembly only to be faced with blank looks. If I said 10 instead of 100 it wouldn't have raised any more of a query in their minds (bar 1, who did respond with a "hmmm??)

When folk are asleep, and they've indicated in vast numbers that they are asleep, you don't get excited about it.

Better to keep schtum, head down to Paddy Powers for a bet that the switcharound in "previously unknown freedoms under the 8th" won't make an appearance in our news media.

Not that Paddy Powers are that thick.

REALLY?

Hotblack Desiato

What's strange is that it was ever unconstitutional in the first place.

Whether TFMR women terminate here or go full term here makes no difference to the health service. They still have to give birth.

Hotblack Desiato

Some seriously sore losers on this thread. Get over it :cool:

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What's strange is that it was ever unconstitutional in the first place.

Whether TFMR women terminate here or go full term here makes no difference to the health service. They still have to give birth.

Under POLDPA, just illegal, as POLDPA has to play second fiddle to the 8th. In ref to the constitution, that was a lucky one [pardon my term] for the anti-abortion side, in that it was un-natural [in their eyes] to kill the unborn, best let nature take it's course by going full term and have a "natural death" as per the great creation plan. Just something that sections of humanity, through a careful thought process, eventually came to see as decidely cruel and unreasonable for any woman to be put through if she knew what the outcome of the birth would be in advance and made a personal decision not to abide by the plan, despite the wishes of the uninvolved. Edit. I think the refusal may lie with the multiple understanding given to the use and meaning of the word termination here.

I'm waiting for the returning officer to do the paperwork so the 8th goes and the 36th inserted. When that happen's, POLDPA is naturally the arbiter til the new legislation comes through. So it seem's there will be no change here in respect of TFMR yet here.

From the point of view of prominent No campaigners, Save The 8th’s spokesperson John McGuirk recently told TheJournal.ie that his group would respect the referendum result. “Respecting the result, however, does not mean waking up one morning and suddenly accepting that the other side were right,” he said.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm waiting for the returning officer to do the paperwork so the 8th goes and the 36th inserted. When that happen's, POLDPA is naturally the arbiter til the new legislation comes through. So it seem's there will be no change here in respect of TFMR yet here.

The 8th goes as soon as Harris gets around to bringing the referendum bill around to the Phoenix Park and the President signs it.

Then he will be free to introduce new abortion legislation to the Dail and debate it with the TD's therein.
He doesn't seem to be in any great hurry though.

What's with these ridiculous euphemisms anyway? I presume by TFMR you mean abortion.

ArmaniJeanss

recedite wrote: »

The 8th goes as soon as Harris gets around to bringing the referendum bill around to the Phoenix Park and the President signs it.

Then he will be free to introduce new abortion legislation to the Dail and debate it with the TD's therein.
He doesn't seem to be in any great hurry though.

I don't think the President can sign it until he is satisfied that there are no outstanding legal challenges, therefore Harris won't bring it to the President until that is the situation.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Some seriously sore losers on this thread. Get over it :cool:

There are no sore losers on this thread.
We are discussing the outcome so far.
Outside of this thread, however, there may be.

outstanding legal challenges

Overheal

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I don't the President can sign it until he is satisfied that there are no outstanding legal challenges, therefore Harris won't bring it to the President until that is the situation.

Pretty sure of that. Any outstanding appeals must be settled by the courts first. After SSM that all happen within about 3 months. For Children's rights (??!?!?!?!?) about the bulk of 3 years.

aloyisious

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I don't think the President can sign it until he is satisfied that there are no outstanding legal challenges, therefore Harris won't bring it to the President until that is the situation.

Recedite Quote:The 8th goes as soon as Harris gets around to bringing the REFERENDUM BILL around to the Phoenix Park and the President signs it.

Then he will be free to introduce new abortion legislation to the Dail and debate it with the TD's therein.
He doesn't seem to be in any great hurry though.Unquote

I'm unaware if the President has, or has not, to sign referendum results into law, as distinct from legislation BILLS passed by the houses of the Oireachtas, which are a completely different matter. Perhaps the person who wrote about the President signing in constitutional amendments can show the part of Irish law where it is required of him/hjer to do so. I can't find it as yet.

I understand that Part 111, Section 40, of the rules on referendum returning officer's duties apply to referendum results becoming law by way of entry into our constitution. The latter has the returning officer sending copies of his certification of the referendum result to the President and Taoiseach, AFTER no petition has been submitted to the courts challenging the result AND the R/O AND the High Court Master declare that there has been no challenging petition made against the result.

In the event of a petition challenge being submitted, the certification of the result is put on hold til the Supreme Court rules on the validity of the petition and it's claim against the result. There has been no successful challenge made to date against referendum results and certification.

Edit: Referral of bills to the Supreme Court
The President may refer a bill, in whole or part, to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. This power may not be applied to a bill to amend the Constitution.

ArmaniJeanss

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm unaware if the President has, or has not, to sign referendum results into law, as distinct from legislation BILLS passed by the houses of the Oireachtas, which are a completely different matter. Perhaps the person who wrote about the President signing in constitutional amendments can show the part of Irish law where it is required of him/hjer to do so. I can't find it as yet.

It's not law as such, its actually in the Constitution itself (kind of constitutional inception here).

Article 46. Amendment of the Constitution.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#part15

Section 5.

A Bill containing a proposal for the amendment of this Constitution shall be signed by the President forthwith upon his being satisfied that the provisions of this Article have been complied with in respect thereof and that such proposal has been duly approved by the people in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of Article 47 of this Constitution and shall be duly promulgated by the President as a law.

So he has to sign off on the amendment firstly, and later sign off on any legislation.

aloyisious

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It's not law as such, its actually in the Constitution itself (kind of constitutional inception here).

Article 46. Amendment of the Constitution.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#part15

Section 5.

So he has to sign off on the amendment firstly, and later sign off on any legislation.

Ta for the above. I had a look at the part covering the President and edited mine.

endacl

recedite wrote: »

There are no sore losers on this thread.
We are discussing the outcome so far.
Outside of this thread, however, there may be.

"It is not yet known on what grounds Jordan is appealing the result of the referendum."

On the grounds of 'I don't want things to be the way things are I'll come up with a reason in a bit bear with me'?

I'd imagine the challenge was waiting in the wings, just on the offchance the result didn't go the way she wanted.

recedite

endacl wrote: »

I'd imagine the challenge was waiting in the wings, just on the offchance the result didn't go the way she wanted.

I'm inclined to agree. Its probably a vexatious or a time wasting exercise, but in fairness we'll have to wait and see what the grounds are supposed to be.
I'm not sure if she had to pay any of the costs incurred after delaying the children's rights referendum result, but obviously it didn't cost her enough.

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree. Its probably a vexatious or a time wasting exercise,

If a week is a long time in politics, then time wasted isn't necessarily being wasted.

magicbastarder

recedite wrote: »

I'm not sure if she had to pay any of the costs incurred after delaying the children's rights referendum result, but obviously it didn't cost her enough.

are the courts usually a little more flexible on these issues, in the 'she did actually raise an issue which needed to be dealt with, so we'll let it slide' sort of way?
the problem is you probably start running into the precedents you yourself have helped set if you do this too much...

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

When folk are asleep, and they've indicated in vast numbers that they are asleep, you don't get excited about it.

The "sleep" angle is one of so many tired clichés which have appeared in decreasing numbers, but increasing volume, over the last few years.

The term belongs in the same bin as "sheeple" and "libtard" and expresses, in a single syllable, the value which the authoritarian outrage machine encourages its followers to place upon respectable public debate.

aloyisious

magicbastarder wrote: »

are the courts usually a little more flexible on these issues, in the 'she did actually raise an issue which needed to be dealt with, so we'll let it slide' sort of way?
the problem is you probably start running into the precedents you yourself have helped set if you do this too much...

In the way of "it's in the public interest" to provide a hearing in case there is something in the petition that may be valid and not wasting the court's time, yes.

In the meantime, other Irish people are protesting the outcome of the referendum. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/sports/olympics/vanderlei-de-lima-goes-from-an-indignity-to-an-illumination.html The 2nd "protest" image is outside the Irish Embassy in London.

Edit. I MUST READ THE SMALL PRINT.

ohnonotgmail

aloyisious wrote: »

In the way of "it's in the public interest" to provide a hearing in case there is something in the petition that may be valid and not wasting the court's time, yes.

In the meantime, other Irish people are protesting the outcome of the referendum. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/sports/olympics/vanderlei-de-lima-goes-from-an-indignity-to-an-illumination.html The 2nd "protest" image is outside the Irish Embassy in London.

That man is an embarrassment to the country

robindch

aloyisious wrote: »

In the meantime, other Irish people are protesting the outcome of the referendum. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/sports/olympics/vanderlei-de-lima-goes-from-an-indignity-to-an-illumination.html The 2nd "protest" image is outside the Irish Embassy in London.

Not in 2016, he wasn't

robindch

Woman who delayed children's referendum outcome for three years takes legal action on abortion result

http://www.thejournal.ie/joanna-jordan-ref-4051212-Jun2018/

The Journal wrote:

A WOMAN WHO previously delayed the enactment of the Children’s Referendum by nearly three years through litigation has lodged a challenge to the abortion referendum in the High Court.

Joanna Jordan attempted to overturn the result of the 2012 referendum but ultimately failed.

Court documents filed show that Jordan will challenge the result under the 1994 Referendum Act, the Sunday Times reported this morning.

Under Irish law, a challenge to a result of the referendum must be filed within seven days of the provisional result of the vote.

The country voted by 66.4% to 33.6% to remove the amendment with more than two million votes cast.

At 64.5%, the turnout was one of the highest ever recorded for a referendum in this country and the highest of any referendum since 1992.

It is not yet known on what grounds Jordan is appealing the result of the referendum.

Overheal

Not sure they will take as long to rule this one out though, but I have not yet heard reports on the substance/grounds of her petition.

During the Children's Referendum, that reportedly had to go to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled that the government using public moneys to provide unbalanced information (ie. publishing information to voters that is not balanced 50% for Yes and 50% for No) does not naturally conclude that the government distorted the result of a referendum.

She and others will have an even higher bar to hit with the courts now for establishing that their petitions against the result have merit. Think weeks, not months - and that's just to schedule the hearings. Stalling tactics more than anything - 'save a few unborn babies.'

aloyisious

Has there been any further Irish newspaper confirmation of the original English newspaper report that Joanna Jordan has put in a petition to the courts here about the referendum? I can't find any mention yet of it except for in the Journal.

Another item I found while digging through the Journal's records was that in it's Citizens Assembly reports the assembly voted for replacing or amending the 8th, and not repealing it, a fine point of law there. http://www.thejournal.ie/citizens-assembly-ballot-3352050-Apr2017/

ohnonotgmail

aloyisious wrote: »

Has there been any further Irish newspaper confirmation of the original English newspaper report that Joanna Jordan has put in a petition to the courts here about the referendum? I can't find any mention yet of it except for in the Journal.

Another item I found while digging through the Journal's records was that in it's Citizens Assembly reports the assembly voted for replacing or amending the 8th, and not repealing it, a fine point of law there. http://www.thejournal.ie/citizens-assembly-ballot-3352050-Apr2017/

The 8th was replaced.