Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

aloyisious · 09-12-2021 11:56pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118291602#Comment_118291602

I cant understand what Donnelly meant/means by his not being currently satisfied with "the ease of access that is required". Is he unhappy with the access to abortion allowed for by law now or the restriction the law still enforces on access to abortion here. If I was OK with abortion but unhappy with the access to abortion allowed for in law, I'd have used the word "allowed" not the word "required".

Loafing Oaf · 10-12-2021 1:48am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118298736#Comment_118298736

Probably not expressing himself very well but I took him to mean he's not satisfied that the ease of access to abortion that is required by law under certain conditions is not there in practice.

Re the terms of reference for the review, I doubt it'll matter much at the end of the day. The final decision is a political one (and has likely already been made, in broad outline), and IMO the review process is largely there to give Donnelly and the government cover for the changes to the abortion regime they have decided in advance they wish to make.

Peregrinus · 10-12-2021 2:00am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118296902#Comment_118296902

Section 7 of the Act states: “The Minister shall, not later than 3 years after the commencement of this section, carry out a review of the operation of this Act.”.

So, it's a statutory obligation which the Minister must obey; the review cannot commence earlier than three years after the legislation has come into effect; and it's a review of the operation of the legislation, not of the legislation itself.

There was of course nothing to stop the Minister starting an earlier review, and/or reviewing the Act itself, in distinction to the operation of the Act. But he'd still be obliged tor review the operation of the Act not less than three years after it commenced, because that's a statutory obligation. It is the clear intention of the Oireachtas that there would be review of the operation of the Act, and that there would be at least three years' experience of it so that there would be material to review, and an understanding of the operation of the legislation in at least the medium term. And the Minister is, of course, accountable to the Oireachtas; if he conducted an earlier review which is not the one the Oireachtas told him to conduct, it's unlikely that the Oireachtas would act on that review, or indeed pay much attention to it, until he had also competed the review that they have required him to complete.

Hotblack Desiato · 10-12-2021 3:34am

the review cannot commence earlier than three years after the legislation has come into effect

It doesn't say that anywhere.

A review of legislation is of much lesser worth if it only reviews what the legislation permits, and not what it excludes.

Peregrinus · 10-12-2021 4:29am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118299137#Comment_118299137

On the timing, you're quite right. The review has to begin not later than three years after commencement; I misread that as not earlier. My bad.

However, the expectation was always that the review would be conducted at the deadline. The government originally proposed a clause that provided for a review not later than five years after commencement (which is a pretty common period for a statutory review of the operation of legislation) but indicated that it was open to suggestions about what the term should be. In the debate at the Committee stage Louise O'Reilly of SF suggested two years but said she could compromise on two-and-a-half years; Stephen Donnelly suggested two or three years; the Minister said that two years was definitely too soon for a useful review but offered three, and that was what was eventually agreed (without a vote, which is common when Bills are amended in Committee). So I think there would have been a pretty clear understanding on all sides that a review earlier than three years after commencement was not expected.

As to the scope of the review, it's explicitly a review of the operation of the Act, not of its terms.

The reason for this is that the Minister is responsible for operating the Act; it's the business of the executive branch of government to carry into effect the laws enacted by the legislature. But he's not responsible for the terms of the Act; those are decided by the Oireachtas. Any member of the Oireachtas can at any time introduce a Bill to amend the terms of Act, or can move for the establishment of an Oireachtas committee to investigate and report on the terms of the Act and on whether amendment is desirable; they don't need a special law allowing them to do so, and they don't need - and, arguably, shouldn't ask - the Minister to do it. Asking the Minister to investigate and report on the terms of the Act would be conceding a part of the Oireachtas's constitutional function to the Minister, which is something that on principle the Oireachtas would be very reluctant to do.

Igotadose · 10-12-2021 1:08pm

From the breakingnews.ie article:

At the moment we have 10 of the 19 hospitals offering a full service.

What an absolute crock. Same number as when the legislation came into effect. So all of 2019, no improvement...

And no opportunity to revise the legislation due to the ~~pandering to FF~~ 'political decision' to not review the legislation but just the logistics. So the harassment embodied in the '3 day cooling off period' and the 12 week limit will remain.

I guess if the Dail got interested, they could always address those two grievous limitations; this would've been an 'easy' opportunity for the government to make those changes.

ohnonotgmail · 10-12-2021 1:24pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118300345#Comment_118300345

is the problem with those hospitals not performing abortions down to the legislation or down to the operation of the act?

Igotadose · 10-12-2021 1:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118300426#Comment_118300426

The article implies some hospitals are not performing well. Of course, with all HSE communications, they're oblique.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/review-to-be-held-into-impact-operation-and-effectiveness-of-abortion-law-1225619.html

Ms Luddy said the HSE had made arrangements to visit hospitals which “weren’t performing and that weren’t participating”, but this was halted at the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020.

So, if you read 'performing' as 'not performing abortions at all,' then the problem is that it's only 10 hospitals. If you read performing as 'doing it poorly/bad scheduling/finding sly ways to prevent abortions and suppressing any complaints registered', it could be worse. It's the HSE, the thing they do best is cover themselves (and even that not too well.)

Also (again, no numbers), not many GPs are participating. That's particularly sad. Maybe they can be incentivized with money.

ohnonotgmail · 10-12-2021 1:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118300446#Comment_118300446

right, so that is a problem with the operation of the law not the legislation itself it seems to me. they are doing a review of the operation of the law.

Igotadose · 10-12-2021 1:46pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118300473#Comment_118300473

TBF they're *choosing to review the operation of the law* but not the legislation at this time, because reasons. They could just as well review the law (and answer questions like, "Is there any point to the 3 day cooling off period? How did that impact provision," and "Is the 12 week limitation too restrictive, as it's at odds with the rest of Europe ~~that isn't an RCC run backwater like Poland~~.

ohnonotgmail · 10-12-2021 1:48pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118300542#Comment_118300542

while that is true I was responding to your point about hospitals not performing abortions.

Loafing Oaf · 10-12-2021 1:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118300345#Comment_118300345

So the harassment embodied in the '3 day cooling off period' and the 12 week limit will remain.

Even if these issues are not specifically addressed in the review, as far as I know that does not mean they will not be changed in any subsequent legislation.

Hotblack Desiato · 10-12-2021 8:34pm

That's true Loafing Oaf, and I take Peregrinus's points on board, but the opposition really need to push now to get a commitment to either a review of the legislation itself carried out by the Oireachtas health committee, or a specific Oireachtas committee for this purpose.

This review would be usefully informed by the outcome of the forthcoming review of the law's operation, especially difficulties with travel and 3 day wait etc, which makes the unnecessary delay in getting that review started all the more maddening.

Get on with it Donnelly ffs, get the review of operation done and then have an Oireachtas committee address both those issues and the issues with the legislation itself.

Igotadose · 16-12-2021 6:41pm

WTF? A "Foetal pain relief bill?!" Sadistic f*ckwits the anti-choice types. Healey's-Rae are just panderers, though it'd be hilarious if someone took them up on their offer. What's a Private Members bill? Just a way to get news coverage?

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/i-believe-that-in-my-heart-and-soul-if-i-was-offered-the-size-of-this-room-in-100-notes-i-would-burn-it-to-protect-one-unborn-child-healy-raes-support-bill-for-foetal-pain-relief-prior-to-abortion-41156956.html

Hotblack Desiato · 16-12-2021 7:03pm

They could afford to, Michael is probably the richest TD in the Dail

Igotadose · 16-12-2021 8:03pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118332478#Comment_118332478

I think that was confirmed sometime ago, worth like 6million Euros. But, there's another thread about those gombeens.

Does a 'private members bill' matter?

Loafing Oaf · 16-12-2021 8:23pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118332780#Comment_118332780

Only if it passes AFAIK

aloyisious · 16-12-2021 11:22pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118332361#Comment_118332361

I'm not being cynical here when I think they probably hope, as a starter, that some-one demand he/she be given proof that the pain relief drug doesn't have painful side effects on the feotus before a private members bill they suggested be voted on. It seems like a two-step dance routine the promoters of such a bill would hope for, a partner to step out of the wings with such a demand, seeking a rehash of the argument that the feotus has awareness of pain because it reacts to noise and other stimulations.

Hotblack Desiato · 17-12-2021 11:37am

It's the exact same BS playbook as used by the Irish "pro-life"rs paymasters in the US, just a couple of years behind.

Expect a "heartbeat bill" in about two years time.

Unless things drastically change in the Dail, none of them have a hope in hell of passing but that's not really the point for these showboaters, getting their name in the media and social media (oops) and associated with "the cause" is all that matters. It's about their own electoral prospects after all, like everything else the H-Rs do.

People of Kerry need to wake the f**k up. I suspect once a certain generation dies off the dynasty is f**ked.

end of the road · 17-12-2021 12:06pm

the people of kerry are awake, they just have some different priorities to you and me and the dinisty deliver on them and while they continue to deliver they will keep being voted in.

smacl · 17-12-2021 12:41pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118336175#Comment_118336175

I'm not convinced that parish pump politics and political dynasties serve anyone well at this stage. There's a rather mafioso feel to the whole thing with more than one turkey involved.

end of the road · 17-12-2021 1:45pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118336453#Comment_118336453

on a country wide basis i would agree.

but lets be fair, the local things that effect one on a day to day basis will for some take priority over issues that don't but which may exist country wide.

Hotblack Desiato · 18-12-2021 1:14am

Most of the H-R's wealth comes from public funds contracts. Plenty of questions there but no answers.

robindch · 18-12-2021 7:35pm

Not a fun time to be pregnant in Poland - where the populist administration there plans to require doctors to report pregnancies, births and miscarriages, allowing bean counters to figure out who might have had abortions. The plan has prompted Polish women to email photos of a range of personal items to the Polish ministry of health, together with messages to the effect that they're not pregnant.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/dec/03/poland-plans-to-set-up-register-of-pregnancies-to-report-miscarriages

Hotblack Desiato · 18-12-2021 9:54pm

Yeah things have been getting incrementally worse in Poland over the last few years. The Abortion Support Network have extended their services to Poland - although our poor legislation means their work in Ireland is by no means done.

Loafing Oaf · 22-12-2021 1:08pm

A poster on Irish Catholics boards, where I occassionally lurk to monitor thinking in those quarters😛, says "Stephen Donnelly's presentation of the "three-year review" makes it abundantly clear that it is based on the assumption that the aim is to have every abortion which involves travel to Britain take place in Ireland instead."

I myself suspect this is the drift of Donnelly's thinking, but I didn't see anything specific in his presentation of the review to confirm that. From what I observed he was keeping his cards close to his chest.

Hotblack Desiato · 22-12-2021 1:47pm

I don't see any evidence of that myself - especially with regard to abortions on ground of non-fatal disability. But these are the same people who regarded the "let's do the absolute minimum to implement the X case decision" POLDP Act in 2013 as "slippery slope", "floodgates" etc. and gave the very strong impression that they viewed it as more moral to let women die instead.

Hotblack Desiato · 22-12-2021 6:20pm

Letter in today's IT:

Sir, – As the doctor appointed by the minister for health in 2018 to advise the HSE on the implementation of the Termination of Pregnancy Act, I share the serious concerns about the forthcoming review of the legislation and its operation expressed by Orla O’Connor and the National Women’s Council of Ireland (“Donnelly is dragging his heels on abortion review”, Opinion & Analysis, December 15th).

I agree that an independent chair should be appointed without further delay, and critically that the review’s terms of reference must be framed to ensure that if the evidence suggests the need for legislative and policy changes, these can be brought forward.

I would highlight four areas in particular that require careful attention to ensure that unnecessary systemic barriers are not limiting access to legal abortion services.

The uneven provision of the service in only 10 of the State’s 19 maternity units needs to be addressed.

The three-day period waiting period is patronising and unnecessary and should be removed.

Parents’ concerns about access to termination in cases of foetal abnormality may mandate legislative review to eliminate the need for unnecessary or unreasonable travel abroad to access appropriate care.

Finally, a hitherto overlooked serious systemic barrier to access is the anomaly in the HSE guidelines which limits the definition of 12 weeks of pregnancy to 84 days from the first day of a woman’s last menstrual period. In universal medical practice, a woman is 12 weeks pregnant until she is 13 weeks pregnant. Twelve weeks of pregnancy is 90 days, not 84, and this is clear and correctly stated in all other HSE material relating to pregnancy.

My efforts in late 2018 to ensure that the correct medical definition of 12 weeks was included in the guidelines met with immovable resistance from within the Department of Health.

This novel definition of 12 weeks of pregnancy should be corrected without further delay. –

Yours, etc,

Dr PETER BOYLAN,

Dublin 6.

Igotadose · 24-12-2021 4:29pm

^^

Just copy/pasted and sent to my TD's, including both Healeys-Rae.

Loafing Oaf · 26-01-2022 3:16pm

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40793298.html

So things are moving a bit. Not someone I'm familiar with but I suppose it doesn't matter who the 'independent chair' is as long as long as they are genuinely independent and competent.

Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Comments