topper75 wrote: » Well sort of. The women get on with THEIR lives yes.
A public list of GPs who are registered to provide medical abortions may be necessary to ensure women looking for a termination are not left confused about where to get the service, it emerged yesterday. Taoiseach Leo Varadkar reiterated that while GPs can have a conscientious objection to providing medical abortions, they will be ethically obliged to refer a woman to a doctor who is participating in the scheme. However, the National Association of General Practitioners has highlighted the objection to referring a woman on to a colleague which a minority of doctors with deeply held anti-abortion views will want to uphold.
RobertKK wrote: So there may be a public list of GPs so there won't be a need for referral, which is what I have argued for.
RobertKK wrote: » https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/public-list-of-gps-providing-abortion-now-likely-37000509.html So there may be a public list of GPs so there won't be a need for referral, which is what I have argued for.
Hitman3000 wrote: » No issue with a list once an exclusion area for protests is also enacted. No one should have to run the gauntlet with protesters outside a doctor's surgery.
end of the road wrote: » would be a waste of time money and resources and wouldn't work IMO. if someone is the type to protest outside a gp who proscribes the abortion pill then it's unlikely an exclusion zone or any other law would stop them. no point in throwing good money after bad IMO.
end of the road wrote: would be a waste of time money and resources and wouldn't work IMO. if someone is the type to protest outside a gp who proscribes the abortion pill then it's unlikely an exclusion zone or any other law would stop them. no point in throwing good money after bad IMO.
Walter Bishop wrote: » Love a bit of the ol' drive-by posting: I'll make my point but you needn't think I'm going to listen to yours!!
Hitman3000 wrote: » Personally any body willing to harass a woman outside a GP's surgery deserves a stay in the Joy. Money well spent in my opinion.
Hitman3000 wrote: » Incarceration is quite effective.
end of the road wrote: very debatible tbh. how many people dispite being jailed, have continued to receive ridiculous amounts of convictions afterwords?
RobertKK wrote: » Leo Varadkar seems to think it will be around 60 doctors needed to provide the proposed abortion service.
end of the road wrote: » harassment is already covered by existing law. up to the authorities and the courts to enforce the laws that exist, which works if actually enforced and the resources are payed for.
end of the road wrote: » very debatible tbh. how many people dispite being jailed, have continued to receive ridiculous amounts of convictions afterwords?
end of the road wrote: » harassment is already covered by existing law. up to the authorities and the courts to enforce the laws that exist, which works if actually enforced and the resources are payed for. very debatible tbh. how many people dispite being jailed, have continued to receive ridiculous amounts of convictions afterwords?
pitifulgod wrote: » A buffer zone has been required in other states so yep I would view it as a very much so worth considering. The government are also considering, I'm lost on why you would prefer not to prevent picketing outside of a gp's office..
ohnonotgmail wrote: » well perhaps it wouldn;t stop them initially but a couple of weeks in the 'joy might make them think about doing it again and deter others.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » the people doing protests of this type are not career criminals who accept jail time as an occupational hazard.
pitifulgod wrote: » The government are also considering, I'm lost on why you would prefer not to prevent picketing outside of a gp's office..
end of the road wrote: » i'd be surprised if it would tbh. i'd reccan it's more likely to spur them to continue, and play the victim as well. but would possibly be willing to accept jail time as part of fighting the cause. because i believe in the right to protest regardless of whether i agree with or like or not, specific protests or protesters. anything that restricts the right to protest, in my view leaves the possibility of extension to other areas and before we know it the possible erosion of our right to protest.
pitifulgod wrote: » They can protest, just not directly outside of a doctor's office.
pitifulgod wrote: » People go to a doctor for all kinds of highly stressful reasons and a gang of protesters famed for harassment adds to it. Whatever the reason, they should not be intimidated by the likes of the ICBR.
end of the road wrote: » agreed but that's not the point. the point is whether we like them or not, the ICBR have a right to protest and if that is outside a gp, then whether we agree with it or not then that is their democratic right and dispite having no time for them, i will support that democratic right.
2.— A person who, while begging in any place— (a) harasses, intimidates, assaults or threatens any other person or persons, or (b) obstructs the passage of persons or vehicles, is guilty of an offence and is liable, on summary conviction, to a class E fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or both
end of the road wrote: » which IMO means they can't protest, because a protest will (depending on the protest) need to be held at the building or area that is the specific entity that is of issue with the protesters. agreed but that's not the point. the point is whether we like them or not, the ICBR have a right to protest and if that is outside a gp, then whether we agree with it or not then that is their democratic right and dispite having no time for them, i will support that democratic right.
spookwoman wrote: » If proper laws were brought in once convicted of said laws then there is civil lawsuits which could see nice payouts to women getting harassed. So not only jail time but also hitting them in the pocket which is a very good deterrent
gctest50 wrote: » ( and we all know how fond the likes of ICBR filth are of "interpretation" ) This should include people with no placards,t-shirts with messages on them etc etc handing out leaflets/info
Overheal wrote: » Ah sure let’s just fcuk off with all the laws that prevent electioneering near polling stations too since that type of crowd won’t obey the law anyway. Herp derp. The right to protest is far from absolute. “Ah sure The Westboro Baptists, they need to be right in front of the coffin of the dead gay soldier to really get across the point that God hates fags.”Your argument is pathetic.
