Peregrinus wrote: » It's not a dishonest reading at all. A key objective of public healthcare is that every woman must have access to reproductive health services. If, in order to bring this about, it is necessary that every hospital in the state should provide the full range of reproductive health services then, fine, a law requiring this is justified. But if that is not necessary, and a law requiring this is justified simply to give colour to the measure whose true objective is to exclude religious providers from the public health system, then you'll have problems. And I'm very sceptical that it's necessary that abortions be provided in every hospital. It's not the case in the UK that abortions are provided in every hospital It's not the case in Australia, where I am living, that abortions are provided in every hospital. I've never heard any complaint, from either country, that this impedes women's access to abortion. Have you? If you think that it is necessary in Ireland, you'll need to make that case. It'll need to be a good, evidence-based case.
alaimacerc wrote: » As formal declarations of someone as a vexatious litigant seem to be unpopular, perhaps bankruptcy proceedings would be other means to similar ends? i.e., stop him doing it again, and put a semblance of manners on him.
Igotadose wrote: » Doesn't the litigant owe costs from her last obstructive challenge to a legitimate referendum result? This article from 2015 says she owes between 1.2 and 1.5 million. She gloats about not becoming a 'negative millionaire'http://www.thejournal.ie/joanna-jordan-supreme-court-costs-2202386-Jul2015/
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Again, you are being dishonest. Nobody has said that abortions must be provided in every hospital. They are saying that if they are not provided it is for medical reasons not ideological reasons.
Peregrinus wrote: » It's not a dishonest reading at all. A key objective of public healthcare is that every woman must have access to reproductive health services. If, in order to bring this about, it is necessary that every hospital in the state should provide the full range of reproductive health services then, fine, a law requiring this is justified.
Peregrinus wrote: » But if that is not necessary, and a law requiring this is justified simply to give colour to the measure whose true objective is to exclude religious providers from the public health system, then you'll have problems.
Peregrinus wrote: » And I'm very sceptical that it's necessary that abortions be provided in every hospital. It's not the case in the UK that abortions are provided in every hospital It's not the case in Australia, where I am living, that abortions are provided in every hospital. I've never heard any complaint, from either country, that this impedes women's access to abortion. Have you? If you think that it is necessary in Ireland, you'll need to make that case. It'll need to be a good, evidence-based case.
Peregrinus wrote: » Enough with the accusations of dishonesty, ohnonotgmail. Vol suggested in post #7809 that "requiring a publicly funded hospital to provide the full range of health services that the health service requires them to provide is perfectly reasonable", and I'm suggesting that it's only perfectly reasonable if, in fact, it's necessary for the efficient or effective provision of the services, which is a case that would have to be made. Remember we are talking hypotheticals here. (Can a hypothetical ever be dishonest?) We're looking at ways in which the state might seek to reduce the involvement of religious bodies in the the provision of health services. Go back and have a reason of my post #7808 for the context in which this particular suggestion arose.
Peregrinus wrote: » Take a step back. I was the one who raise the possiblity of a law requiring all hospitals to provide abortions, because I was exploring ways of getting around the constitutional restrictions which would make it difficult to compulsorily purchase hospital premised belonging to religious orders. I never suggested that anyone was actually proposing this; it's entirely hypothetical. My point was simply that, unless there was a good evidence-based case for imposing such a rule, the courts would probably see it as an improper attempt to bring about the closure of the hospitals, in order to make it possible to compulsorily purchase the premises and reopen the hospital under HSE management.I never suggested that this was a serious policy proposal from anyone. I just raised it to explore the limits of the constitutional restriction on the compulsory purchase of property belonging to religious bodies.
Peregrinus wrote: » It's not the case in Australia, where I am living, that abortions are provided in every hospital. I've never heard any complaint, from either country, that this impedes women's access to abortion. Have you?
end of the road wrote: » i'd agree, but the state seems to have been happy (and seems to be still happy) to go along with it. i believe if the state were to now try and remove religious control of hospitals and schools, it would be more about politics rather then because it's the right thing to do.
end of the road wrote: » i wouldn't think so, given there are i'm sure a number of sources who would be willing to pay any future legal bills. therefore making him bankrupt in what would be in my view, revenge for using the court system to exercise his democratic right to fair justice, would be in my view a pointless exercise. i'd agree, but the state seems to have been happy (and seems to be still happy) to go along with it. i believe if the state were to now try and remove religious control of hospitals and schools, it would be more about politics rather then because it's the right thing to do.
volchitsa wrote: » It's not just about abortion either - the bishops have shown their hand with this document, and have said that contraception cannot be provided. For purely ideological reasons, not health ones.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Does anyone know the exact provenance of this document? I find it strange that bishops who have been largely politically passive for a long time should suddenly take this ultra-hard line at such a sensitive juncture.
volchitsa wrote: » Oh and by the way, for someone who lives in Australia, I'm amazed that you have never heard complaints about women in some states having serious problems with getting access to abortion. I presume you simply aren't listening.Is abortion legal in Australia? It's complicated.Abortion access in Australia is shocking and unfair.
volchitsa wrote: » It's available in Veritas bookshops, and the initiative seems to be a direct result of the Yes vote. I suppose that having lost the abortion issue, they no longer see the need to follow lay advice about appearing moderate on the other issues like contraception any more.https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/catholic-hospitals-set-to-ban-abortion-v9zwkd2qkCatholic bishops to set up Council for life following Yes vote They've come out of the closet, so to speak. --- Sorry for requoting myself, but the suggestion that Australia might be a good example for Ireland to follow on abortion law led me to look up the current situation there, and I came across this :Sacking a woman for her views on abortion: Cricket Australia should be ashamed
Mark Hamill wrote: » Vice versa, actually. It would have been and will always be the right thing to do, to remove religious control of schools and hospitals. The reason they continue not to is political.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » If they were to try and remove religious control of schools and hospitals it would be the right thing to do. It would also be the politically favourable thing to do which is a happy coincidence.
end of the road wrote: » absolutely, the reason the state hasn't done it is political. but the current government if they were to do it, would be doing it for political reasons only IMO. yes, however given that is the case, i believe the current government would go complete full force on it without thinking things through, meaning things wouldn't be done properly.
volchitsa wrote: » It is basically a political decision, because it's being taken by politicians. No idea why you think that makes it wrong, or what you think might be a better way to go about removing religious influence from schools and hospitals.
volchitsa wrote: » Or are you suggesting that the status quo is preferable really?
volchitsa wrote: » It's available in Veritas bookshops, and the initiative seems to be a direct result of the Yes vote. I suppose that having lost the abortion issue, they no longer see the need to follow lay advice about appearing moderate on the other issues like contraception any more.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Could be, or perhaps Bishop Kev and Bishop Fonzie have seized the episcopal sTeering wheel from their more eirenic 'superiors'.
end of the road wrote: » okay, if it's political simply because politicians do it, then compared to other political parties, i believe the current government would be extra-focused on doing it for election and political purposes only. so focused that they will rush it through, not think things through, and screw it up in some way, and quite hugely more then likely.
end of the road wrote: » ]no, i'm not. i'm sure we have been in the threads together discussing religious influence in schools, where i have stated i believe it should be removed.
end of the road wrote: » i'm suggesting that the current shower in government aren't the right ones to be trusted to handle such a complex move.
volchitsa wrote: » I think that's much the same thing really - the feeling among the hierarchy may be that they gave Archbishop Diarmuid Martin's more restrained approach too much credit, because it didn't give them the result they wanted. IOW, any perceived moderation from the hierarchy is only ever a question of keeping their heads down in order to achieve their goals via other means, not because they have actually become more moderate.
volchitsa wrote: » So do you mean we should change government in order to achieve this, or just not do it for the foreseeable future? Or what? It's all a bit unclear. If you say so, I don't remember what your views were. But from this thread I'm getting that it's more of a "it should be removed but not yet". Which is a No really. Well you provided zero evidence as to why you think that, but for the sake of progressing the discussion, let's take it as read for now : So who is, and how do we get there?
end of the road wrote: » volchitsa wrote: » So do you mean we should change government in order to achieve this, or just not do it for the foreseeable future? Or what? It's all a bit unclear. If you say so, I don't remember what your views were. But from this thread I'm getting that it's more of a "it should be removed but not yet". Which is a No really. Well you provided zero evidence as to why you think that, but for the sake of progressing the discussion, let's take it as read for now : So who is, and how do we get there? my view is it may be best to change government yes . people like leo varadkar and simon harris are not people who should be anywhere near a government who would be implementing this in my view, i believe they are not responsible enough. simon harris comes across as someone who is idealistic and doesn't think things through, and leo varadkar is all talk with no substence. all filler no killer as they say. we need clear headed politicians who think things through, who will do this properly and who won't rush it and who will get it right. i don't have anyone in particular in mind but i'm sure they are there.
end of the road wrote: » my view is it may be best to change government yes . people like leo varadkar and simon harris are not people who should be anywhere near a government who would be implementing this in my view, i believe they are not responsible enough. simon harris comes across as someone who is idealistic and doesn't think things through, and leo varadkar is all talk with no substence. all filler no killer as they say. we need clear headed politicians who think things through, who will do this properly and who won't rush it and who will get it right. i don't have anyone in particular in mind but i'm sure they are there.
Calina wrote: » I actually think you are wrong about Simon Harris. He drove through that referendum.
Calina wrote: » In any case, your arguments suggest that if a politician is making the decision you won't agree because it is too political.
Calina wrote: » We cannot get around this as the hierarchy is clearly unwilling to divest. If they wanted to divest it would have happened. Net result is it will have to be a decision by the State.
Calina wrote: » It is the job of politicians to drive policy. Being a politician is a nature of being a politician. We have this view that being a politician is dirty as a job, not real enough as a job. It is why in many cases the best are not attracted to it.
Calina wrote: » Our schools should be secular. Being educated in the ways of a religion should happen in that church or the family home. And religious orders should not be directing health policy regardless.
volchitsa wrote: » Any evidence for those claims about Varadlar and Harris, or are you just projecting onto them?
volchitsa wrote: » And are there many goals that you support but which you think need to be put on indefinite hold until some unknown "better" people come along to carry them out? What criteria do you have to recognise the right people anyway? TBH, the complete lack of definition of what you think would be required makes your stance look very much like a way of pretending to support something while in fact wanting to ensure that obstacles are put in its place so it doesn't actually happen.
end of the road wrote: » i stated that it was my opinion only.
end of the road wrote: » how it looks to others isn't relevant to me. i know i support divestment, however i want it done right, and properly. i am also mindful of the reality that it's not going to be a simple process to happen.
