8th Amendment

28-05-2015 04:11PM

I don't believe Ireland will allow a UK-style abortion regime for generations; maybe not in my lifetime.

To repeal the 8th, we can't just delete the amendment, we have to put something else in its place to clearly grant the right to an abortion. Now there's a slim chance we'll start allowing abortion in terms of FFA, rape and incest, but "abortion on demand"? Forget it.

It's almost impossible for us to understand what it's like to have your body dominated in this way, with no prospect of change for many years to come. I think it's pretty sickening.

seamus · 28-05-2015 04:13PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

To repeal the 8th, we can't just delete the amendment, we have to put something else in its place to clearly grant the right to an abortion.

No, that's not correct, we can just delete the amendment, plus the other two articles about right to information and right to travel.

There's no reason why we have to mention abortion or the unborn in the constitution at all.

No Voter And Proud · 28-05-2015 04:30PM

seamus wrote: »

No, that's not correct, we can just delete the amendment, plus the other two articles about right to information and right to travel.

There's no reason why we have to mention abortion or the unborn in the constitution at all.

So then would you suggest we would provision for it at legislative level instead?

Huntergonzo · 28-05-2015 04:33PM

fits wrote: »

I will vote labour if they make this referendum happen.
A personal contact had to travel to abort a much wanted but fatally abnormal foetus. There is no way she could have carried to term. They brought foetus home in boot of car to bury. Current system is absolutely cruel and heartless.
These decisions should be between woman, partner and doctors and noone else.

I heard a story very similar to that (if it wasn't the exact same story) on the radio last year and it was gut wrenching to listen to the mother speaking about it. Makes me utterly ashamed of my country that we would permit and encourage such barbarism and also hard to take is those that still turn their noses up to it and support the 8th, it's fcuking disgusting!

Also I just saw my first anti choice ad on Youtube, looks like they're preparing very early on for what will be a far dirtier fight than the same sex marriage referendum, watch out women of Ireland, you're in for a very degrading time when this comes up again.

28-05-2015 04:33PM

seamus wrote: »

No, that's not correct, we can just delete the amendment, plus the other two articles about right to information and right to travel.

I'm basing this on what I heard Ivana Bacik say on radio. She's written a book on this, so I think she says it with authority... apparently abortion was always prohibited in the constitution, the 8th amendment was believed to have strengthened the prohibition.

seamus · 28-05-2015 04:33PM

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

So then would you suggest we would provision for it at legislative level instead?

Yep. Just like we did before.

Glenman · 28-05-2015 04:58PM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I heard a story very similar to that (if it wasn't the exact same story) on the radio last year and it was gut wrenching to listen to the mother speaking about it. Makes me utterly ashamed of my country that we would permit and encourage such barbarism and also hard to take is those that still turn their noses up to it and support the 8th, it's fcuking disgusting!

Also I just saw my first anti choice ad on Youtube, looks like they're preparing very early on for what will be a far dirtier fight than the same sex marriage referendum, watch out women of Ireland, you're in for a very degrading time when this comes up again.

Yes I bet you did hear this story in the media. However, you never hear or see the stories of families who have been through these diagnoses and chose life over abortion. You can see some of these stories at the link below;
http://onedaymore.ie/

This media bias was the reason that the pro life campaign organised the 33 TO 1 EVENT CHALLENGING MEDIA BIAS in March in response to 33 articles appeared in national newspapers pushing hard for more abortion. In the same fortnight period, only 1 pro-life article was published.

PopePalpatine · 28-05-2015 05:08PM

Note the use of the words "chose life". Not everybody wants to give birth to a baby that's lucky to live for a few days at most.

Huntergonzo · 28-05-2015 05:25PM

Glenman wrote: »

Yes I bet you did hear this story in the media. However, you never hear or see the stories of families who have been through these diagnoses and chose life over abortion. You can see some of these stories at the link below;
http://onedaymore.ie/

This media bias was the reason that the pro life campaign organised the 33 TO 1 EVENT CHALLENGING MEDIA BIAS in March in response to 33 articles appeared in national newspapers pushing hard for more abortion. In the same fortnight period, only 1 pro-life article was published.

I don't fall for media bias, I make my own mind up and I don't read the papers much at all either because they're full of lies and pointless gossip, I find them a bit boring to be honest.

There's no such thing as choosing life in this debate, there are those who decide to go ahead with a pregnancy, which is the vast majority of people, then there are those who choose to go ahead with the pregnancy despite what the doctors tell them. This is a risk of course, probably with mixed results but it is their choice, but it is barbaric to force an Irish person to travel and then bring their fetus home in the boot of a car and that's only one story I'm aware of, unless of course you either don't care of believe she made it up.

Loafing Oaf · 28-05-2015 09:08PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't believe Ireland will allow a UK-style abortion regime for generations; maybe not in my lifetime.

To repeal the 8th, we can't just delete the amendment, we have to put something else in its place to clearly grant the right to an abortion. Now there's a slim chance we'll start allowing abortion in terms of FFA, rape and incest, but "abortion on demand"? Forget it.

IMO, rape/incest is likely to be the wedge that forces a broad liberalisation of the abortion law. In fact I don't know how you would legislate in practice for abortion in those circumstances without such a broader liberalisation, or at least I'm not aware of any jurisdiction where it has been done effectively. Now, opinion polls are currently showing 75-80% majorities in favour of a right to abortion in cases of rape and incest. Of course not all of those people would accept 'liberal abortion' if that was the only practical way to vindicate that right, but I suspect enough of them would to make it happen...

krankykitty · 29-05-2015 08:54AM

Glenman wrote: »

This media bias was the reason that the pro life campaign organised the 33 TO 1 EVENT CHALLENGING MEDIA BIAS in March in response to 33 articles appeared in national newspapers pushing hard for more abortion. In the same fortnight period, only 1 pro-life article was published.

You do know the fortnight that they based that "media bias" on? The fortnight that story was in the news about the braindead pregnant woman. People were rightly outraged at that and I'm not surprised there were no pro life articles in that particular fortnight. However, the rest of the year is fair game, we are subjected to Breda O'Brien, John Waters, David Quinn etc on what seems like a daily basis.

volchitsa · 29-05-2015 09:04AM

krankykitty wrote: »

You do know the fortnight that they based that "media bias" on? The fortnight that story was in the news about the braindead pregnant woman. People were rightly outraged at that and I'm not surprised there were no pro life articles in that particular fortnight. However, the rest of the year is fair game, we are subjected to Breda O'Brien, John Waters, David Quinn etc on what seems like a daily basis.

It seems to me that the fact that none of the usuals were prepared to come out and opine on that poor woman and her family at the time actually shows they realize just how weak their stance is every time a real life example occurs. It only works as long as a purely hypothetical "love them both" fluffy kittens kind of slogan.

Similarly, many from the pro-life side here seemed to feel that discretion was the better form of valour concerning the 10 year old Paraguayan girl recently.

Someone should do the same count for a different two weeks, say the two weeks just before that story broke over Christmas, and compare them. I suspect it would tell us a lot about the ruthlessly dishonest media strategy that Iona and the rest have adopted.

L1011 · 29-05-2015 09:56AM

krankykitty wrote: »

You do know the fortnight that they based that "media bias" on? The fortnight that story was in the news about the braindead pregnant woman. People were rightly outraged at that and I'm not surprised there were no pro life articles in that particular fortnight. However, the rest of the year is fair game, we are subjected to Breda O'Brien, John Waters, David Quinn etc on what seems like a daily basis.

I'm actually surprised there was the one they've mentioned, to be honest.

volchitsa · 29-05-2015 10:08AM

L1011 wrote: »

I'm actually surprised there was the one they've mentioned, to be honest.

Yeah. The other question that needs to be asked (assuming a count made over a different fortnight shows a significant disparity - as I think it's bound to) is what effort was made by the various media outlets to get their opinions on this issue or over that time.

For instance does David Quinn normally send in unsolicited opinion pieces or does he wait till they contact him about something? If so, what happened in December 2014?

Were they all knocking desperately at the doors at Montrose wanting to explain their views, or was there an embarrassed silence from them when called up to speak about it?

Somebody must know this. Presumably the people complaining about being muzzled could tell us in what way they weren't allowed to be heard just at that particular time?

29-05-2015 11:22AM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

IMO, rape/incest is likely to be the wedge that forces a broad liberalisation of the abortion law. In fact I don't know how you would legislate in practice for abortion in those circumstances without such a broader liberalisation, or at least I'm not aware of any jurisdiction where it has been done effectively.

I wouldn't have thought it would be difficult. Wouldn't they just insert into the constitution an article which qualifies the prohibition on abortion by saying that abortion is permitted in circumstances of an alleged rape, incest, or where the child has no reasonable prospect of survival into infancy?

I think that would be a close-run referendum, but it would pass.

There is no serious prospect of a more liberal regime any time soon.

In any event, think the Labour Party have made a mistake in taking comfort from the outstanding success of the same-sex marriage referendum. Marriage is perceived as a wonderful, affirmative expression of human love: marriage equality 'increases the sum of human happiness' (those are the words of one Roman Catholic bishop emeritus!). It's easy to get people to ring their granny and knock on doors appealing for the citizens to support love.

It's a lot more difficult to get enthusiastic about abortion.

#AbortionEquality?

Zubeneschamali · 29-05-2015 11:26AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Wouldn't they just insert into the constitution an article

No, that's what caused the whole mess in the first place.

The referendum should be to delete the 8th, 13th and 14th amendments completely.

29-05-2015 11:44AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, that's what caused the whole mess in the first place.

The referendum should be to delete the 8th, 13th and 14th amendments completely.

That referendum wouldn't have a chance of passing. Anyone who thinks Ireland would vote for a UK-style abortion regime is mad. Polls indicate that only 68% are even in favour of abortion in circumstances of fatal foetal abnormality.

Secondly, People like Ivana Bacik and others who tend to know about this topic have said that abortion was always unconstitutional. That argument was also advanced during the 1983 referendum by the pro-choice groups.

If that's true, then deleting the passages is not enough. You'd surely have to insert a statement explicitly permitting abortion. That's my understanding anyway.

Loafing Oaf · 29-05-2015 11:45AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought it would be difficult. Wouldn't they just insert into the constitution an article which qualifies the prohibition on abortion by saying that abortion is permitted in circumstances of an alleged rape, incest, or where the child has no reasonable prospect of survival into infancy?

I think that would be a close-run referendum, but it would pass.

IMO the referendum can only be for a straight repeal of the 8th amendment, on the understanding that the government would then legislate for abortion in circumstances x, y and z.

But that's beside the point here, the difficulty lies is regulating abortion in cases of rape and incest, be it via the Constitution, legislation, medical guidelines or any other means, without a broader liberalisation of the regime.

Do you wait until the offender has been convicted before the woman pregnant through rape/incest can be allowed access to abortion? Presumably you can see the difficulty with that. Do you instead accept the word of the woman that she is a victim of rape/incest and will this not in practice be tantamount to abortion on demand?

I would be very interested to know if there is a jurisdiction where abortion access is effectively restricted to those pregnant through rape or incest.

volchitsa · 29-05-2015 11:55AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That referendum wouldn't have a chance of passing. Anyone who thinks Ireland would vote for a UK-style abortion regime is mad. Polls indicate that only 68% are even in favour of abortion in circumstances of fatal foetal abnormality.

Secondly, People like Ivana Bacik and others who tend to know about this topic have said that abortion was always unconstitutional. That argument was also advanced during the 1983 referendum by the pro-choice groups.

If that's true, then deleting the passages is not enough. You'd surely have to insert a statement explicitly permitting abortion. That's my understanding anyway.

It was illegal because of the 1865 (or whenever) OATP act, but what clause would have made it unconstitutional pre the 8th? (I'm not saying it wasn't, but I'm not aware of the claim, and it must presumably be based on something already written into the constitution.)

oscarBravo · 29-05-2015 12:00PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Secondly, People like Ivana Bacik and others who tend to know about this topic have said that abortion was always unconstitutional.

Do you have a source for that? I assume it's based on Article 40, but it feels like a stretch to read it that way.

If that's true, then deleting the passages is not enough. You'd surely have to insert a statement explicitly permitting abortion. That's my understanding anyway.

Ugh. Legislating in the Constitution is what gives us atrocities like Article 41.3.2.

Zubeneschamali · 29-05-2015 12:18PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Secondly, People like Ivana Bacik and others who tend to know about this topic have said that abortion was always unconstitutional. That argument was also advanced during the 1983 referendum by the pro-choice groups..

Ivana Bacik was only 15 in 1983, but I was old enough to vote, and nobody on the pro-choice side said that.

29-05-2015 12:40PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Ivana Bacik was only 15 in 1983, but I was old enough to vote, and nobody on the pro-choice side said that.

The courts said it. I have a book on this which was partly written by Bacik, who is an expert, even if she wasn't an adult at the time. I'm sure someone with legal knowledge could confirm what she has said.

In the early 1980s, the pro choice side were worried about Roe vs Wade, and they were concerned that the constitutional ban was not strong enough. They asserted that it should be explicit. So 1983 made something explicit, and probably strengthened it, even though it already existed.

29-05-2015 12:43PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you have a source for that?.

It's something I first heard on radio last year, apparently there was a series of cases in the 1970s or 1960s that confirmed it. The claim also appears in a book 'Abortion in Ireland' which is co-written by Bacik. I'll put up a direct quote and reference later this evening.

Zubeneschamali · 29-05-2015 12:48PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

TIn the early 1980s, the pro choice side were worried about Roe vs Wade, and they were concerned that the constitutional ban was not strong enough, that it should be explicit. So 1983 made something explicit even though it already existed.

I was paying attention to this debate in the early 80s, and there was no Constitutional mention or protection of the "unborn" before the 1983 amendment. That is why the pro-life side were afraid that the existing law would be found unconstitutional or in breach of European law, because the woman's rights are in the Constitution and the embryos rights were not.

Zubeneschamali · 29-05-2015 12:49PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'll put up a direct quote and reference later this evening.

I am quite confident that you will find Bacik's book says no such thing.

jill_valentine · 29-05-2015 01:02PM

The difference in attitudes to abortion in case of rape/incest vs anything else is such a frustrating thing to see. It just lays it out so starkly that the real problem people have with abortion ain't blah blah blah babies lives!!!1!

volchitsa · 29-05-2015 01:11PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The courts said it. I have a book on this which was partly written by Bacik, who is an expert, even if she wasn't an adult at the time. I'm sure someone with legal knowledge could confirm what she has said.

In the early 1980s, the pro choice side were worried about Roe vs Wade, and they were concerned that the constitutional ban was not strong enough. They asserted that it should be explicit. So 1983 made something explicit, and probably strengthened it, even though it already existed.

The courts were hardly pro-choice, which was your claim.
Although perhaps you meant pro-life, as I presume you must have meant in this post? It doesn't make sense otherwise.
Again, though, the courts weren't meant to take any side, were they?

As for what the actual pro-life groups did claim, my memory of it is that they were afraid that there was no constitutional protection at all, and that a Roe/Wade-type decision would one day confirm the unconstitutionality of the pre-independence OATP Act on the grounds of the right to personal freedoms which were in the constitution.

29-05-2015 01:21PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

One of the big questions for me will be what proponents of the 8th's removal will replace it with?

Nothing.

This whole saga has achieved nothing and has been a disaster from start to finish.

29-05-2015 06:03PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I was paying attention to this debate in the early 80s, and there was no Constitutional mention or protection of the "unborn" before the 1983 amendment.

You're badly mistaken. Your memory is not what you think it is.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am quite confident that you will find Bacik's book says no such thing.

Why? Have you even read it?

Kingston J., Whelan A. and Bacik I (1997) Abortion and the Law Dublin: Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell. pp2-5

p5

"The decision to submit the proposal as passed by the Oireachtas to the People was challenged in an action taken against the State by a private individual who sought an injunction preventing the the holding of the [1983] referendum".

(The footnotes give the name of that case as Finn vs Attorney General 1983)

"He claimed that it would be unconstitutional to insert the proposed Eighth Amendment into the Constitution and argued that the amendment would be superfluous as the Constitution already protected the unborn."

This case was unsuccessful, we are told, because the High Court and Supreme Court said they could not interfere with the referendum process. However, we are told that the courts decided

"that the right to life of the unborn was already protected by Article 40.3 of the Constitution. [Judge Barrington] was of the view that the use of the word “citizen” in the Fundamental Rights section of the Constitution was not necessarily to be read literally. He further held that the right to life was a natural right protected by the Constitution, but antecedent and and superior thereto. He held that the “whole scheme of moral and political values which are clearly indicated by the Constitution” indicated that the right to life protected by Article 40.3 was not confined to citizens and that he “would have no hesitation in holding that the unborn child has a right to life and that it is protected by the Constitution”.

There were other cases in the 1960s and 70s but the above passage is perhaps the most laconic.
I am not sure how much more I can reproduce without breaching copyright. I am happy to photograph the chapters and print them here if mods will allow it.

In any case, I have since discovered this up-to-date link on a UCC blog

http://constitutionproject.ie/?p=380

This would have been big news in 1983, and if you remember the referendum as well as you say you do, then I can't understand how you could have missed it.

I say this as a person who is vehemently pro-choice and pro-liberty for women. I find it sickening that the constraints are so severe, but if it isn't as easy as repealing the 8th amendment, then we deserve to know about that and discuss that like reasonable people.

S.O · 29-05-2015 07:00PM

If there is a referendum to completely repeal the 8th I would vote against it and maybe campaign against it , I would be against liberal abortion laws that exist in the uk where an abortion can be requested on demand.

I think abortion should only be permitted in circumstances where a womans life is at risk, theres a miscarriage occurring, or in cases of rape, if a referendum wad held to amend the 8th to make a rape exception I would vote yes in favour, if a woman has been raped and is pregnant afterwards it should be her choice if she wants go through with the pregnancy or not.

8th Amendment

Comments