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; } } }

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Ozymandius2011

This is for people who have already voted in the referendum. How did you vote? I voted yes.

Mod: This thread is little more than a survey about how you voted. Please don't the ins and outs of abortion.

Mod: This is not a reiteration of the previous 8th threads. If you were threadbanned from those, you are not threadbanned here.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

seamus

end of the road wrote: »

it likely won't thankfully. and nor should it. people are entitled to take a case to the courts. if they don't have a case, it will be thrown out.

In this instance though it's not the same. His case hasn't been thrown out. He wanted a discovery order made so he could gather evidence to prove his case. That's not what they're for.

It's a bit like hearing a rumour 3rd hand that someone was assaulted in a shopping centre, so bringing the shopping centre to court to force them to hand over their CCTV footage for inspection. Or rather, to force the shopping centre to gather footage from every individual shop's camera and present it to the plaintiff reformatted for easy watching, to find out whether an assault happened.

He absolutely should be forced to pay the cost of his fishing expedition. It's one thing bringing a case when you have evidence. It's another altogether to try and force the state to gather data for you so you can look for evidence to see if you have a case.

Cabaal

_Dara_ wrote: »

LOL. I thought she had evidence? The photos are all one tweet/retweet.

Wow, that example they given is heavily flawed.

People turning up to vote but not registered? Errr so? , if they ain't registered the clerk will have not given them a voting slip. So they won't have voted.

This is clearly just time wasting

alaimacerc

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course, that's the whole idea. If enough GPs join this boycott of abortion services, women will find it a total pain to locate a doctor who does provide the service. Then the service will have to be centralized through the HSE.

Then the anti-abortionists will have a central point to picket and protest, driving women away.

And of course to smugly crow about there being "abortion clinics", and thus an "abortion industry". Having worked hard to bring that very situation about.

Job done for Youth Defence.

(Formerly trading as "Save the 8th".)

WillContribute

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Given that these are doctors we are talking about, it is more like a man showing up with a chest infection and being told by the doctor that this practice doesn't do antibiotics.

Who does?

Not telling.

Apologies, off grid for a few days.

The main issue is that COs are not the best or likely even good people to give referrals.

There will be the service available, give the best service to those that need it. Why give a secondary service?

E.g.
Completely different experience but directly relevant. I had a minor accident about a year ago over a long weekend away from a city. Followed normal procedures, called the local G, referred to on call local service, 1 stitch given on a Saturday to fix a bad wound on my face. I was advised I'd have a scar. 1 day later it, reopened ( the next day. )

I am proactive and happen to have insurance, many might not have either. I then located a good GP elsewhere who specialized in skin conditions and minor operations, organised an appointment and had it fixed the two days later. 16 or 17 stitches over 2 layers. Now the scar is nearly invisible. Depending on the practitioner completely different results.

I appreciate the abortion pill would be different but the principle is the same. Why force someone to go to a secondary option?

Depending on where you go you, get different treatment and quality of treatments. Let the patient choose.

WillContribute

sabat wrote: »

Could you give me an example of how (aside from the female doctor aspect) a woman could have a preference for one abortionist over another?

Apologies, off grid for a few days, nearly a week in fact. Why preference one abortionist over another? (Your words)

Declaration: I am not anti-abortion in total, OK with FFA and rape with propering counselling and some structure, but the 12 weeks with no reason was too much for me, maybe 6 or 8 weeks, could live with that. I appreciate that others think it could be different and the vote had passed, but come on deal with the logic.

But to your question.

Doctor A has a bigger practice that doctor B, therefore more experience, likely better experience and results.

Doctor C is the woman's local GP, and her mother's also. It'll take generations to adjust that one.

Doctor D has more/less equipment asks more/less questions that doctor E. This is what her friends have said. Whatever the woman more comfortable.

There are many reasons why a woman might choose one abortionist over another.

My main point is that Conscientious Objectors are not the people to give referrals. See my other recent post as to what happens, if you end up with a well meaning but not the best referral.

I have yet to see a rebuttal as to why CO are suitable to make referrals.

F

WillContribute

sabat wrote: »

Could you give me an example of how (aside from the female doctor aspect) a woman could have a preference for one abortionist over another?

Apologies, off grid for a few days.

My main point was that COs( Conscientious Objectors ) are not the best people to give referrals, people should stop fighting this and move on, come with a new solution.

On your question. Why why.might abortionist be favoured over another.
.

Doctor A has a bigger practice than Doctor B, therefore more experience, likely better outcomes.
Doctor C, is the local doctor, also treats the woman's mother for hypertension. Too close for comfort. It'll take generations to change this one.

Doctor D has better/less facilities asks more/less questions than doctors E.

There are lots of reasons.

Fighting Tao

WillContribute wrote: »

Apologies, off grid for a few days.

My main point was that COs( Conscientious Objectors ) are not the best people to give referrals, people should stop fighting this and move on, come with a new solution.

On your question. Why why.might abortionist be favoured over another.
.

Doctor A has a bigger practice than Doctor B, therefore more experience, likely better outcomes.
Doctor C, is the local doctor, also treats the woman's mother for hypertension. Too close for comfort. It'll take generations to change this one.
Doctor D has better/less facilities asks more/less questions than doctors E.

There are lots of reasons.

New solution?

That’s easy. Have doctors do their job as medical practitioners. If they refuse to do their jobs then they should no longer be doctors. It’s just like any other job. Refuse to do it and you won’t be working for the company much longer.

Loafing Oaf

WillContribute wrote: »

My main point was that COs( Conscientious Objectors ) are not the best people to give referrals, people should stop fighting this and move on, come with a new solution.

Well they will be legally obliged to whether they like it or not, so it's people on your side of the argument who need to stop fighting and move on...

alaimacerc

WillContribute wrote: »

The main issue is that COs are not the best or likely even good people to give referrals.

As low an opinion as I might have of people that would seek to put their self-righteous purported "conscience" ahead of their professional and moral duty by their patients and fellow citizens... just how bad would they have to be as fully qualified GPs if they're not even minimally competent to write a referral?

Wouldn't be wanting to get a prescription of them either, if they're not able to accomplish the first, much simpler task.

alaimacerc

WillContribute wrote: »

Declaration: I am not anti-abortion in total, OK with FFA and rape with propering counselling and some structure, but the 12 weeks with no reason was too much for me, maybe 6 or 8 weeks, could live with that. I appreciate that others think it could be different and the vote had passed, but come on deal with the logic.

What logic? You've just told us your Feels. Something magical apparently happens in pregnancy between the second and the third missed period that completely changes that woman's entitlement to bodily autonomy. In fairness, you're probably best placed to deal with those.

No workable legal or practical solutions to deal with rape and incest was advanced; on the contrary, the Assembly and the Committee examined this, and came up with what they did. I appreciate you're a week off-grid, but the rest of the country covered this fully a year ago.

My main point is that Conscientious Objectors are not the people to give referrals.

How incompetent to practice does a fully qualified doctor have to be in order to not be able to write a referral? You'd obviously not want them to be doing anything more complex, like writing a prescription. Much less de-waxing your ears. (Other examples, and indeed orifices, are available.)

Did you get this Learned Helplessness idea from how you're able to get out of the Pink Jobs at home? "Sorry love, I guess I'm just really bad at the washing up, hahahahaha."

WillContribute

Fighting Tao wrote: »

New solution?

That’s easy. Have doctors do their job as medical practitioners. If they refuse to do their jobs then they should no longer be doctors. It’s just like any other job. Refuse to do it and you won’t be working for the company much longer.

New solution, is not new. An opt in system with a central self-referral mechanism, which has info on availability, waiting times, etc. If the woman is not happy, she can contact this and at least see the options.

The other option is spend the next X years fighting a big portion of doctors and the woman is left wondering what is happening. As for firing the doctors, Mary Harney tried a much more reasonable threat with the consultants. They put her back in the box lively and no one has gone there again.

Fighting Tao

WillContribute wrote: »

New solution, is not new. An opt in system with a central self-referral mechanism, which has info on availability, waiting times, etc. If the woman is not happy, she can contact this and at least see the options.

The other option is spend the next X years fighting a big portion of doctors and the woman is left wondering what is happening. As for firing the doctors, Mary Harney tried a much more reasonable threat with the consultants. They put her back in the box lively and no one has gone there again.

There wouldn’t be a fight. Refuse to do your job and you lose it. Simple as that.

Consultants were different as they were the leading experts in the country for certain displicines.

WillContribute

(Quote)How incompetent to practice does a fully qualified doctor have to be in order to not be able to write a referral? You'd obviously not want them to be doing anything more complex, like writing a prescription. Much less de-waxing your ears. (Other examples, and indeed orifices, are available.)

(/Quote)

Obviously there's no problem writing referrals, but is that referral of any value or any good? Is it not supposed to be medically assessed? Should the referrer consider the medical needs and conditions? Why does the CO(obviously disliked) then become the gatekeeper? The merry-go-round could be very long.

(Quote)
Did you get this Learned Helplessness idea from how you're able to get out of the Pink Jobs at home? "Sorry love, I guess I'm just really bad at the washing up, hahahahaha."[/quote]

Ah, please play the ball, anything else weakens the argument.

alaimacerc

WillContribute wrote: »

Obviously there's no problem writing referrals, but is that referral of any value or any good?

In what way would it be defective? You seem to be flailing around looking for an actual point here.

Is it not supposed to be medically assessed? Should the referrer consider the medical needs and conditions?

No. Those are the very things they're "objecting" to doing. Thus, they wouldn't do them, but refer the patient to someone else to have them done. Do keep up.

Why does the CO(obviously disliked) then become the gatekeeper?

"Obviously disliked"? What? This makes no sense at all. Are you trying to frame this as some sort of "Ashers Bakers" type mock-martyrdom? Someone gets themselves knocked up, then goes a doctor they have a grudge against. In order to get them some extra Hail Mary's if they write a referral, and a Medical Council complaint if they don't?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, here's the actual situation. Young woman is in crisis pregnancy. Goes to her family doctor. Turns out she's a Holy Josephine. What now?

Ah, please play the ball, anything else weakens the argument.

Oh, do grow up. I did. This is AH, don't be rolling around on the floor like Renaldo trying to make out I've broken both your ankles.

If a doc is "unable" to write a referral, they're "unable" to tie their own shoelaces. Any poor performance of this task by an otherwise competent doctor is very clearly going to be a matter of bad-faith obstruction.

Water John

This happened in Canada. This woman had a prescription from her doctor. The detail was, she was going to miscarry anyway, but the pharmacist she happened to get, refused on moral grounds and did not refer her on.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44591528

Looks like some are still hopeful this will happen regularly here.

Cabaal

Water John wrote: »

This happened in Canada. This woman had a prescription from her doctor. The detail was, she was going to miscarry anyway, but the pharmacist she happened to get, refused on moral grounds and did not refer her on.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44591528

Looks like some are still hopeful this will happen regularly here.

Nothing like women suffering to make them happy eh?

alaimacerc

Water John wrote: »

This happened in Canada. This woman had a prescription from her doctor. The detail was, she was going to miscarry anyway, but the pharmacist she happened to get, refused on moral grounds and did not refer her on.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44591528

Looks like some are still hopeful this will happen regularly here.

Some people are very used to getting their way by default on social issues. Hence they've not really internalised that the big, ideologically indistinct, but curiously cohesive "Ah now, don't push it!" middleground in Irish politics has moved on. Might take a while until they realize it isn't a viable strategy any more to just continue to hoof it up the park, for habitual deference to the church to tap it into the back of net.

In the meantime, low-grade arguments for the status quo will continue, until people, doubtless in staged cohorts with a very long tail, cop on it's not the status quo any more.

_Dara_

I’m very over the whole “GPs should be able to conscientiously object!” versus “All GPs must be obliged to refer!” arguments. It’s all so pointlessly points-scoring and antagonistic on both sides.

I just want a practical solution worked out. I never expected that every GP would offer the service. Each county will only need a handful of doctors that offer the service. Based on the estimated number of abortions up to now, that will be plenty. I don’t want GPs who offer the service feeling threatened so my thinking is that when it has been ascertained that a woman is pregnant, she can then be referred by some centralised process. She would just need to show that she’s pregnant. Then hopefully the GPs who provide the service won’t be common knowledge. I haven’t thought about this too in-depth admittedly but I’m just trying to suggest an alternative.

alaimacerc

_Dara_ wrote: »

I don’t want GPs who offer the service feeling threatened so my thinking is that when it has been ascertained that a woman is pregnant, she can then be referred by some centralised process.

A 15yo girl has found herself pregnant. She's only dealt with one doctor in her life, the family GP. Her family are a bunch of cyberpanickers, and she doesn't have unsupervised access to the internet. (GDPR has set the "DAOC" at 16, remember!) Her "religious ethos" school has fairly dodgy sex education, and certainly isn't going to let people hand out "abortion propaganda!", like the contact details for this "centralised process".

So, she needs to find her way by mystical means to this, in order to protect the delicate sensibilities of a more-Catholic-than-the-pope doctor, and their right to say "you're on your own, love", rather than "go see Dr [name] at [address]"?

What's your "practical solution" for Declan Ganley's standstanding about needing a "conscientious objection" to paying tax? Go halfers? No, you're right, that's a bit radical, let's call it 30%.

_Dara_

Well, I had strict parents and yet went off on shopping trips to our nearest city pretty regularly. There was no big deal about it. On one of those trips, I paid my first visit to a family planning clinic for the pill, my parents none the wiser. This was pre-internet.

As for interest access. If her family doesn’t have internet, one of her friends will. It’s not believable that a teenager would struggle to find internet access. It might occasionally be the case but the two scenarios - pregnancy and lack of internet access - coinciding is vanishingly unlikely.

Also, why the fook are you bringing up Declan Ganley’s moronic conscientious objection to his tax covering abortions? I was CLEARLY not talking about that. I was talking about doctors conscientiously objecting to giving abortion services or referring. Seriously, why would you bring that up? I don’t want to find a practical solution to Ganley’s witterings.

alaimacerc

_Dara_ wrote: »

Well, I had strict parents and yet went off on shopping trips to our nearest city pretty regularly. There was no big deal about it. On one of those trips, I paid my first visit to a family planning clinic for the pill, my parents none the wiser. This was pre-internet.

Kudos, but not quite a "crisis" situation, so time and state of mind likely more favourable to your situation than an unplanned pregnancy.

As for interest access. If her family doesn’t have internet, one of her friends will. It’s not believable that a teenager would struggle to find internet access. It might occasionally be the case but the two scenarios - pregnancy and lack of internet access - coinciding is vanishingly unlikely.

I don't know about "vanishingly", but certainly it would be an unfortunate coincidence. I still don't think it's prudent to plan on a "well, let's hope for the best!" basis. Don't want to have revisit this after some sort of avoidable tragedy. Consider also the case where the girl (or woman) just goes to the GP as the first place she thinks to turn. Sure, in principle she can go elsewhere, or get on google after she's told "you're on your own", but I don't think it's a situation she ever should have been put in, in the first place. Not just to facilitate someone doing a Pontius Pilate, when supposed to be the responsible professional in the room, with a very great deal less at stake personally.

Also, why the fook are you bringing up Declan Ganley’s moronic conscientious objection to his tax covering abortions? I was CLEARLY not talking about that. I was talking about doctors conscientiously objecting to giving abortion services or referring. Seriously, why would you bring that up? I don’t want to find a practical solution to Ganley’s witterings.

I mention it because it illustrates that "conscience" isn't sensibly a blank cheque to opt out of whatever professional or civic obligation one likes. Otherwise, for example, I'd also be opting out of mine to not repeatedly slap Rónán Mullen's smug little mug. To take another random example.

_Dara_

I do think that having no internet is a vanishingly rare situation these days.

I just want people to be pragmatic, that’s all.

alaimacerc

_Dara_ wrote: »

I do think that having no internet is a vanishingly rare situation these days.

It seems to be aspirational for the cyberpanickers. Isn't that what the whole GDPR Seanad ambush was over, after all?

Anyhoo, I didn't say "no internet", I said "no unsupervised internet". Then I described another, different situation where expecting before-the-fact venue-shopping also seems unreasonable.

I just want people to be pragmatic, that’s all.

I've yet to hear what's not "pragmatic" about "so give her the name and contact details of another doctor, then".

iguana

Has there been any ruling on the High Court actions? I have been away for a few days and this is the most recent news I can find on them.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/judge-to-rule-later-on-bids-to-challenge-result-of-abortion-referendum-852018.html

Igotadose

iguana wrote: »

Has there been any ruling on the High Court actions? I have been away for a few days and this is the most recent news I can find on them.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/judge-to-rule-later-on-bids-to-challenge-result-of-abortion-referendum-852018.html

I've been keeping an eye out for this, too. Nothing better than the article you've found. I thought they'd have resolved the remaining 2 challenges by now.

alaimacerc

Igotadose wrote: »

I've been keeping an eye out for this, too. Nothing better than the article you've found. I thought they'd have resolved the remaining 2 challenges by now.

Me neither; proceedings concluded on the 29th, very similar reports in the IT and the Examiner. "Judgement reserved", so they'll let us know when they let us know. Also haven't heard if the tag-team spoofers from Leitrim are being heard in the Supreme Court in their attempt to revive the third, equally spurious, challenge.

Igotadose

A smidgen of information in this RTE report on the Cabinet and Brexit:

"Minister Harris to seek cabinet approval for new legislation which will provide for the regulation of abortion and give effect to the passing of last May's referendum."
Legislation will be introduced to the Dail once the referendum challenges are resolved.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0710/977567-brexit-cabinet/

alaimacerc

Igotadose wrote: »

A smidgen of information in this RTE report on the Cabinet and Brexit:

"Minister Harris to seek cabinet approval for new legislation which will provide for the regulation of abortion and give effect to the passing of last May's referendum."
Legislation will be introduced to the Dail once the referendum challenges are resolved.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0710/977567-brexit-cabinet/

Soz for Indo link, but this covers the gist of what was on the radio earlier today. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/simon-harris-to-bring-abortion-law-to-cabinet-today-37099422.html

Loafing Oaf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

This is the genius of the GP-led approach. Even at a facility that provides the abortion pill, only a small minority of women in the relevant age will be going in to get it, so haranguing people on the way in to their GP is going to massively annoy the 98% of that doctor's patients who have no concern with abortion.

Just seen a pro-life guy on politics.ie explicitly concede this point:

If they don't happen, it's because the service being a gp lead service makes it difficult to protest given protesters won't know who is going for an abortion and who isn't. If we have clinics on the other hand, then protests will likely happen and no buffer zones will prevent them.

If, as I suspect, this is how the vast majority of pro-life are thinking, then protests will not materialize on any significant scale, and Ireland's abortion wars are over...

ELM327

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Ireland's abortion wars are over...

And were over since the referendum!