splinter65 wrote: » We’ll never know what the grounds are of that refusal.
MFPM wrote: » I'm no fan of RC and she is primarily interested in publicity but it is entirely appropriate to rasie this in the Dail. This is about a woman's legal right to access an abortion based on FFA which two consultant doctors signed off on. The Coombe board overruled them and it is appropraite that they be asked to explain that decisison. Why didn't they refer the women to another maternity hospital, are they testing the law for loopholes, was it a case of conscientious objection or obstruction - these issues need answers.
splinter65 wrote: » What can the Dail do about these things?
....... wrote: » Thats not what is being reported. The Board is not wholly comprised of medical doctors. The medical doctors advised she should have an abortion. The Board said no.
splinter65 wrote: » I’d hope not. Is it a regular occurrence that TDs bring medical care disagreeements to the Dail as a matter of urgency? What can the Dail do about these things? Neither Bríd Smith or Ruth Coppinger are medically qualified to comment. Medically qualified staff at the Coombe must have recommended that an abortion was not the correct course of action in this case. I doubt if they’ll change their minds because an unqualified person tells them they must. Or I hope they wouldn’t.
splinter65 wrote: » I’d hope not. Is it a regular occurrence that TDs bring medical care disagreeements to the Dail as a matter of urgency? What can the Dail do about these things? Neither BrSmith or Ruth Coppinger are medically qualified to comment. Medically qualified staff at the Coombe must have recommended that an abortion was not the correct course of action in this case. I doubt if they’ll change their minds because an unqualified person tells them they must. Or I hope they wouldn’t.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » The coombe cant respond to any questions about a particular patient.
splinter65 wrote: » Did Bríd Smith and Ruth Coppinger not try to get some kind of response from the Coombe first?
Delirium wrote: » Heard this mentioned in lunchtime news....Source I fail to see what is gained by making the woman wait until she miscarries instead of performing the abortion??
A pregnant woman who has discovered that her foetus has a fatal abnormality has been denied an abortion, TDs have claimed in the Dáil. Solidarity TD Ruth Coppinger and People Before Profit TD Bríd Smith raised the case with Tánaiste Simon Coveney on Thursday. “I want to raise what I believe is the first test case for the new abortion legislation. I have been contacted by a woman who has a fatal foetal abnormality that has been certified by two consultants,” Ms Coppinger said. “Now it appears the board of the Coombe Hospital is refusing her constitutional right that we all voted for to have an abortion at a time she chooses. “Instead they have told her that she must wait another four weeks to see if there is a spontaneous miscarriage. At 13 weeks this woman went for her 12 week scan and they could clearly see at that point that the organs of the foetus were outside of the body. They brought her back a week later where that was fully confirmed when they got a better image. “One doctor, her consultant and another consultant was brought in who said yes, it is a fatal foetal abnormality but a week later, it went to the board, and the board over-ruled that,” Ms Coppinger said. “This is about the law. A main maternity hospital in the capital city of this country is refusing this woman her constitutional right when two doctors certify what is very clearly a fatal foetal abnormality.”
tretorn wrote: » You can keep on saying but, but, but but the reality is abortion will be as widespread in this country as it is everywhere else in Europe within five years and practically no babies with Downs will live to tell the tale.
tretorn wrote: » Where is your right to engage in peaceful assembly constrained by law, case law please. The Constitution specifically states citizens have the right to peaceful assembly and in order to amend this right another referendum will have to be called. Any new laws introduced cannot conflict with fundamental constitutional rights. The Gardai can do nothing about peaceful assemblies except sit on their bikes looking on.
splinter65 wrote: » So where is your evidence of these “terrified old people”?
King Mob wrote: » No you did not. You deflected and avoided the question. You did everything except answer it directly and plainly, If this is not the case, either point out the post where you did give these reasons, or outline them again.
end of the road wrote: » that point was addressed by me. both in the post you quoted in the post you linked in and in a couple of others.
splinter65 wrote: » I answered your question yesterday. I gave you I think three possible reasons. You just want to keep pretending that you don’t get replies. I have no idea why you think that’s a good arguing strategy
splinter65 wrote: » I’m glad your satisfied that out of 3000 GPs 200 are on board 8 full months after the referendum was carried. If I were a committed repealer I’d be asking some questions but I voted no, I’m not even Irish and as I think the Irish people are getting exactly what they deserve anyway, I really shouldn’t interfere.
tretorn wrote: » Downs syndrome can now be safely predicted at eleven weeks and women can have abortions without questions asked up to twelve weeks.
If the pregnancy is thirteen weeks or more in gestation the woman can say her mental health will be affected by the pregnancy, she doesnt have to say because the foetus has Downs, she just has to say if she continues with the pregnancy her life will be danger due to suicide.
and practically no babies with Downs will live to tell the tale.
tretorn wrote: » Where is your right to engage in peaceful assembly constrained by law, case law please.
Disorderly conduct in public place. 5.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to engage in offensive conduct— (a) between the hours of 12 o'clock midnight and 7 o'clock in the morning next following, or (b) at any other time, after having been requested by a member of the Garda Sh to desist. (2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500. (3) In this section “offensive conduct” means any unreasonable behaviour which, having regard to all the circumstances, is likely to cause serious offence or serious annoyance to any person who is, or might reasonably be expected to be, aware of such behaviour. Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in public place. 6.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to use or engage in any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned. (2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both. Distribution or display in public place of material which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene. 7.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to distribute or display any writing, sign or visible representation which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.
The Constitution specifically states citizens have the right to peaceful assembly and in order to amend this right another referendum will have to be called. Any new laws introduced cannot conflict with fundamental constitutional rights. The Gardai can do nothing about peaceful assemblies except sit on their bikes looking on.
tretorn wrote: » You are quoting Law in the UK, its not relevant here because all our rights derive from provisions under Bunreacht Na HEireann and Citizens of Ireland have a constitutional right to peaceful assembly. If the Gardai drag peaceful protesters off the Street someone will take a constitutional action and seek damages. You cant just make up laws saying people cant protest against abortion and then allow people to come together to protest against something else. You cant stop Joe Soap exercising his right to protest wherever he likes because he might offend someone else. Be very careful about encouraging drafting of draconian laws.
tretorn wrote: » And, no again she wont. Downs syndrome can now be safely predicted at eleven weeks and women can have abortions without questions asked up to twelve weeks. If the pregnancy is thirteen weeks or more in gestation the woman can say her mental health will be affected by the pregnancy, she doesnt have to say because the foetus has Downs, she just has to say if she continues with the pregnancy her life will be danger due to suicide. This is how the woman in Germany got her failed abortion, abortion is legal in Germany up to thirteen weeks but nine out of ten foetuses with downs syndrome are aborted under the mental health card clause. You can keep on saying but, but, but but the reality is abortion will be as widespread in this country as it is everywhere else in Europe within five years and practically no babies with Downs will live to tell the tale.
end of the road wrote: » different country so is therefore irrelevant to his point.
tretorn wrote: » .......... You cant just make up laws saying people cant protest against abortion and then allow people to come together to protest against something else. ....
gctest50 wrote: » Governments elsewhere fixed it with this sort of thing : "The Council has had particular regard to the rights and freedoms set out in Article 10 (right of freedom of expression) and Article 11 (right of freedom of assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights and has concluded that the restrictions on such rights and freedoms imposed by this Order are lawful, necessary and proportionate. " "ORDER ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR, CRIME AND POLICING ACT 2014, SECTION 59 PUBLIC SPACES PROTECTION ORDER This order is made by the London Borough of Ealing (the ‘Council’) and shall be known as the Public Spaces Protection Order (Address) 2018. PRELIMINARY1. The Council, in making this Order is satisfied on reasonable grounds that: The activities identified below have been carried out in public places within the Council’s area and have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, and that: the effect, or likely effect, of the activities: is, or is likely to be, of a persistent or continuing nature, is, or is likely to be, such as to make the activities unreasonable, and justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice.2. The Council is satisfied that the prohibitions imposed by this Order are reasonable to impose in order to prevent the detrimental effect of these activities from continuing, occurring or recurring, or to reduce that detrimental effect or to reduce the risk of its continuance, occurrence or recurrence.3. The Council has had regard to the rights and freedoms set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Council has had particular regard to the rights and freedoms set out in Article 10 (right of freedom of expression) and Article 11 (right of freedom of assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights and has concluded that the restrictions on such rights and freedoms imposed by this Order are lawful, necessary and proportionate. THE ACTIVITIES4. The Activities prohibited by the Order are:i Protesting, namely engaging in any act of approval/disapproval or attempted act of approval/disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means. This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling,ii Interfering, or attempting to interfere, whether verbally or physically, with a service user or member of staff,iii Intimidating or harassing, or attempting to intimidate or harass, a service user or a member of staff,iv Recording or photographing a service user or member of staff of the Clinic whilst they are in the Safe Zone,v Displaying any text or images relating directly or indirectly to the termination of pregnancy, orvi Playing or using amplified music, voice or audio recordings." .
tretorn wrote: » You are quoting Law in the UK, its not relevant here because
gctest50 wrote: » Governments elsewhere fixed it with this sort of thing :
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Unless we change the law again, that's just not going to happen. Any woman seeking to abort a DS pregnancy will have to go to the UK. But this has already been pointed out to you multiple times, so your motivation in repeatedly posting obvious falsehoods has to be called into question.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f07ee44b0b39bbb635066da4046d9475.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
