Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

King Mob wrote: »

What in your view would be an example of someone abusing the system?

given the topic is about abortion, i don't believe it's relevant. abuses of our systems are certainly an issue but are a separate issue which i think is more suited to being discussed in a different thread.

aloyisious wrote: »

Good article to read. I'm surprised [or maybe shouldn't be] that David Quinn is broadly hinting that the Pro-life polls taken on the street/at doorways were faulty because those responding were being nice - read dishonest - to the Pro-life pollsters disguising how large the vote would really be against the Pro-Life campaign. Mary Kenny made some good points but I reckon she was wrong where she thinks the church - or the bishops, as Archbishop Martin understands some blame-words to mean - should have been overtly & publicly involved. I reckon that the church was right in its thinking that that would have been a counter-productive move given how there has been a very large populace swing against faith in the church because of its dishonesty and a subsequent disbelief in anything spoken or written coming from the church spokespersons - anger on the streets as it were. This is just my reading on some of the article points.

I travel a lot for work, so I met at least three different NO campaign teams, one who even tho the house had a choice poster still kept leaving in their posters, which while their right, convinced floating voters that there was no respect for them in the process.

The two other houses, the flyer was left but the doorbell unrung, unsurprising as word of intimidating children and bad behaviour at stalls ran through the populace like wildfire. So in a different circumstance, I would have agreed with them to get them away from me/kids before they started on the 'aren't you lucky your mum didn't have you chopped up when you were in her tummy' ?conversation to the kids in the house at the time.

As an aside, when I was looking for info from No campaign before the ref was even called, I was given very little in a format I could read(white on red is a disaster for dyslexics, similarly pink) was called lazy when I asked for a different format, was told I was too old to be bothered anyway when I called at stalls, uneducated when I queried the 'science' in the flyers that had been handed to the kids in some church-based activities. If I didn't know the system backwards as it stands, I would have voted YES just to send the message that treating ppl with questions that way, attempts at brainwashing and outright lies were not acceptable in my circle.

end of the road wrote: »

aloyisious wrote: »

As in here in Ireland, and not abroad, by delaying at least the signing into law the referendum vote result and subsequent Govt legislation being enacted through Leinster House?

yes that's correct, we are talking about here. however i don't believe any rights are being denied. the result is going to be signed into law at some stage, and people have a right to challenge it as has been done via these failed cases before it would be signed in . so everyone's rights have actually been upheld here IMO.

As long as it is not being signed into law, legislation for abortions cannot be enacted. This results in access to abortion being held up. As pregnancy is time sensitive then yes, the cases result in women not being able to have abortions in Ireland for an unspecified period. That right is being deliberately blocked.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a right that EOTR thinks they should not have so he is ok with it.

i don't believe being able to kill the unborn for any reason is a right in the first place. so no i don't believe any right is being blocked.

end of the road wrote: »

kill the unborn

But you said that abortion isn't murder...

Bredabe wrote: »

What if a pregnant woman and her baby die before the legislation is enacted? what about their right to life?
Would the remaining family be able to sue the govt/save campaign/the individuals holding up the will of the ppl for compensation?

i wouldn't imagine so.

Bredabe wrote: »

Now, as the 'challenges' have held up changes around the 8th, a woman's life is still worthless in a mum-v-baby scenario, so what about her right to life as things stand? In your view.

As I have experienced a scenario such as this recently, don't tell me that the 8th WILL save mum over baby, that simply isn't what happened in practice.

I can't speak to the your experience, but the law is pretty clear: POLDPA covers this situation. Actual medical practice may not, but by that token even post-8th it might take a while to conform to it.

But it's certainly currently the case that every other right of the woman is out the window, if it conflicts with "the unborn's". Mental and physical and health, medical consent, bodily autonomy, you name it. So those are still being denied while the "rights" of serial filibusterers are vindicated over them.

alaimacerc wrote: »

If she dies, her next of kin should be able to sue on the basis of failure to act properly on the basis of the POLDPA, if that can be shown.

A better example might be where the woman experiences severe medical harm, in a situation not covered by the present act. I doubt there'd be any liability on the government or the No side at large; the law is the law, until it's changed.

As to the litigants here... I've no real idea. I suspect you'd at the least have to demonstrate that it was a bad-faith exercise on their part, and they could or should have foreseen the harm incurred.

This is where my question stems from, we know that in a mum-v-baby scenario it goes to professional judgement as to how treatment proceeds and when, so indeed in the case, I was involved in, she was within hours of death.
She will have ongoing life impacting conditions because of it. I can't see how anyone who is fillabusting or legally holding up repeal, would be unaware that someone may suffer negatively because of the delay their actions are causing.

Bredabe wrote: »

This is where my question stems from, we know that in a mum-v-baby scenario it goes to professional judgement as to how treatment proceeds and when, so indeed in the case, I was involved in, she was within hours of death.

There's going to be a professional judgement involved regardless. I suppose in theory you're grand if you have a health-threatening condition in the first 12 weeks, and can afford to wait three days, but that's going to be the minority of cases. (Largely the "I have a long-term condition that makes any pregnancy dangerous" ones, rather than the "complications have arisen" sort.)

Granted, there's a difference in that while the POLDPA gives doctors effectively very broad discretion, it does little to say how they must use it. They don't have to prove "real and substantial risk", just that they made a good faith decision that it was their professional judgement that was the case. But conversely, difficult to demonstrate they've made an error in the opposite direction, too.

She will have ongoing life impacting conditions because of it. I can't see how anyone who is fillabusting or legally holding up repeal, would be unaware that someone may suffer negatively because of the delay their actions are causing.

(Edit: sorry, forgot to reply to this bit, though I'd intended to!

I don't know either. But people have used their "pro-life" beliefs to justify firebombing and murder. To prevent what they see as a "greater crime", somehow. I'm these people would disassociate themselves from that, but equally they're happy to substitute their own beliefs, over a democratic decision of their fellow citizens.

RTE news has reported that the High Court has awarded costs against both applicants in regard to charges occurred during the Friday hearing. Both applicants applied for their costs and were refused by Judge Kelly, that they didn't reach the standard required. According to RTE, Ms Jordan has indicated she is going to the Court of Appeal in respect of some part of the rulings. RTE also stated that the Returning Officers certificate can be brought to Michael D for signature to allow the Govt proceed with legislation action to bring in abortion here.

State entitled to costs in abortion referendum legal challenge

The State and Referendum Commission are entitled to their legal costs, estimated at more than €200,000, of successfully opposing two separate bids to challenge the abortion referendum result, the president of the High Court has ruled.

One of the two, Joanna Jordan, said she intends to appeal the refusal to let her bring a petition challenging the result. In that context, a stay applies until at least Friday preventing the referendum result being formally certified.

On Tuesday, Mr Justice Peter Kelly said the State and Commission are entitled to their legal costs against Charles Byrne, whose application involved both.

He ruled the State was also entitled to its costs against Joanna Jordan, whose case only involved State parties.

Because Mr Byrne is not pursuing an appeal over the dismissal of his application for permission to bring a petition challenging the referendum outcome, and the court was told his only asset is a piano, the judge recommended the State and Commission might consider not pursuing him for costs.

FFS :mad: fcuking chancer.

About time too

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

"Buying them out" wouldn't necessarily be the only way of separating church and state, though. The more important question is not, "who owns the land/buildings?", but "who controls the conduct of the hospital/on what terms is the hospital conducted?". It may be possible to change the answers to the latter questions without necessarily buying the land.

That, in fact, is the kind of question that a policy paper should be exploring.

volchitsa wrote: »

So stop funding them, see how far they get without the HSE paying the running costs, salaries, investments etc.

A severe case of having your cake and eating it. Catholic hospitals in America don't get massive subsidies from the tax payer to provide their Catholic medicine.

i'm sure they will get on fine, they will probably sell the buildings and land that they own to property developers. is the state going to pay to build new hospitals to replace them if that worst case happened? i'd doubt it. have the state being saving money via using the church to effectively bail them out via providing land and buildings? i'd very much think so.
separating the church from the hospitals is correct and i personally agree with it but it's not going to be a simple exercise, and if the state is actually serious about doing it (at the moment i'm not quite so sure it is) then they need to be aware of this, and have a plan that is actually workible and which the church is going to actually agree with. because whether people like it or not, or want to hear it or not, an amicable solution is probably going to be the only outcome here, the idea of the state going full force on the church is very unlikely.