Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

RobertKK · 12-12-2018 1:11pm

Gintonious wrote: »

Seanad sitting well into the night it seems.

Ronan Mullen should be made pay for all the taxis home. He is a disease.

I agree, things would go much faster if everyone agreed on everything, it would be a sign of a healthy democracy apparently...

volchitsa · 12-12-2018 6:06pm

RobertKK wrote: »

I agree, things would go much faster if everyone agreed on everything, it would be a sign of a healthy democracy apparently...

You really think that's what that post said or are you being as disingenuous (or dishonest) as Mullan?

A 66% vote at referendum vs a senator who is elected by a special constituency that doesn't in any way correspond to the population in general - which one should get priority when it comes to respecting democracy? Hmm, it's so hard to know... :rolleyes:

nice_guy80 · 12-12-2018 7:14pm

Mullen always seems to be against everything
Any piece of legislation giving more freedoms to citizens
Has he contributed anything positive to the Seanad?

Hotblack Desiato · 12-12-2018 7:28pm

volchitsa wrote: »

A 66% vote at referendum vs a senator who is elected by a special constituency

I'd say an overwhelming proportion of the NUI graduates who vote for him are ex Dept of Theology, Maynooth

RobertKK · 12-12-2018 9:21pm

volchitsa wrote: »

You really think that's what that post said or are you being as disingenuous (or dishonest) as Mullan?

A 66% vote at referendum vs a senator who is elected by a special constituency that doesn't in any way correspond to the population in general - which one should get priority when it comes to respecting democracy? Hmm, it's so hard to know... :rolleyes:

ok, so in a democracy you are arguing 34% of people should not have their views heard in the political chambers of power in this country.

volchitsa · 12-12-2018 9:27pm

RobertKK wrote: »

ok, so in a democracy you are arguing 34% of people should not have their views heard in the political chambers of power in this country.

Complete rubbish, that's not what I'm arguing at all. I'm saying that the referendum was a simple Yes/No choice, and the answer was Yes, so any attempt by a senator to block it further is antidemocratic.

Tell us, if instead the 8th had been tightened up by 66/34, say to remove the suicide clause, should the 34% of pro-choicers been allowed to block any subsequent legislation to enact that legislation?

RobertKK · 12-12-2018 10:50pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Complete rubbish, that's not what I'm arguing at all. I'm saying that the referendum was a simple Yes/No choice, and the answer was Yes, so any attempt by a senator to block it further is antidemocratic.

Tell us, if instead the 8th had been tightened up by 66/34, say to remove the suicide clause, should the 34% of pro-choicers been allowed to block any subsequent legislation to enact that legislation?

How was he going to block it?
He had every right to have his voice heard in the Seanad, as did every other senator.
Debating a bill in the houses of Oireachtas should have varied opinion, otherwise we have a serious problem in this country.

You talk about people blocking. I would be seriously concerned with our parliament if people who were elected in either chamber and were not allowed to oppose a bill. What is happening with this bill. Politicians oppose all the time in our parliament.
All I see is people getting their knickers in knots because it is Ronan Mullen, who has every right to oppose if he as a legislator believes so.
Afterall the vote was to leave abortion in the hands of politicians.

We were told by some Yes campaigners, it is simply to remove the 8th amendment from the constitution, and allow the politicians have control.
But now it is all politicians must agree to abortion.
I'm sorry but we live in a democracy, and you wanted the politicians to have the power over this issue. Now that is a problem too...

Hotblack Desiato · 12-12-2018 11:00pm

The amendments he and the other usual suspects were proposing were deeply mysogynistic and were intended to prevent the legislation from functioning.

That's a world away from suggesting workable amendments. He wants to be listened to but never listens to anyone else.

It's all a pointless waste of time, showboating for his far-right buddies in the US who bankroll his campaigns.

volchitsa · 12-12-2018 11:33pm

RobertKK wrote: »

How was he going to block it?
He had every right to have his voice heard in the Seanad, as did every other senator.
Debating a bill in the houses of Oireachtas should have varied opinion, otherwise we have a serious problem in this country.

You talk about people blocking. I would be seriously concerned with our parliament if people who were elected in either chamber and were not allowed to oppose a bill. What is happening with this bill. Politicians oppose all the time in our parliament.
All I see is people getting their knickers in knots because it is Ronan Mullen, who has every right to oppose if he as a legislator believes so.
Afterall the vote was to leave abortion in the hands of politicians.

We were told by some Yes campaigners, it is simply to remove the 8th amendment from the constitution, and allow the politicians have control.
But now it is all politicians must agree to abortion.
I'm sorry but we live in a democracy, and you wanted the politicians to have the power over this issue. Now that is a problem too...

The people are sovereign though and the people voted to allow women to terminate their pregnancies. Ronan Mullem is not trying to improve the law, he is trying to block it or even make it unworkable.

You can pretend to think that is democracy if you want, but we can all see that you're lying. It's that simple. You are against the law, so you would be happy to see the will of the people being obstructed if you could.

RobertKK · 13-12-2018 12:01am

volchitsa wrote: »

The people are sovereign though and the people voted to allow women to terminate their pregnancies. Ronan Mullem is not trying to improve the law, he is trying to block it or even make it unworkable.

You can pretend to think that is democracy if you want, but we can all see that you're lying. It's that simple. You are against the law, so you would be happy to see the will of the people being obstructed if you could.

They voted to remove the 8th amendment from the constitution.

You don't have to start name calling by saying I am a liar. It surely isn't that hard to be civil, I can disagree and stay civil about things. It would be nice if one could receive similar civility.

ohnonotgmail · 13-12-2018 12:10am

RobertKK wrote: »

They voted to remove the 8th amendment from the constitution.

You don't have to start name calling by saying I am a liar. It surely isn't that hard to be civil, I can disagree and stay civil about things. It would be nice if one could receive similar civility.

Coming from somebody who would have been quite happy for the referendum not to be passed and women to have to continue to make the trip to england i find that a bit hypocritical. Civility should extend a bit further than the person you are talking to at any particular time. You showed absolutely no civility to women affected by the 8th during the referendum campaign.

Guy:Incognito · 13-12-2018 12:44am

RobertKK wrote: »

They voted to remove the 8th amendment from the constitution.

.

Yeah, and when everyone thought it was going to be close , the no side tried to scaremonger by saying the proposals would all come to fruition. Thinking people would reject it. Instead they overwhelmingly supported it.

Time for people to shut up and let what the voting public voted for to be introduced.

end of the road · 13-12-2018 12:49am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Time for people to shut up and let what the voting public voted for to be introduced.

doesn't work like that, i'm afraid. i thought you are in favour of democracy?

amdublin · 13-12-2018 1:07am

end of the road wrote: »

doesn't work like that, i'm afraid. i thought you are in favour of democracy?

Oh great. End of the road. Back with their anti choice agenda again

ELM327 · 13-12-2018 10:14am

amdublin wrote: »

Oh great. End of the road. Back with their anti choice agenda again

I really like that poster.
For one reason, they "thanks spam" a lot. Meaning they don't post a lot but they thank a lot of posts. It means that any time a post is thanked by them (especially if it's only them) it is likely a nonsense post and can be ignored.

....... · 13-12-2018 10:39am

RobertKK wrote: »

I'm sorry but we live in a democracy, and you wanted the politicians to have the power over this issue. Now that is a problem too...

Politicians need to give representations for the views of their constituents - not their own personal views. THAT is anti democratic.

amcalester · 13-12-2018 10:54am

ELM327 wrote: »

I really like that poster.
For one reason, they "thanks spam" a lot. Meaning they don't post a lot but they thank a lot of posts. It means that any time a post is thanked by them (especially if it's only them) it is likely a nonsense post and can be ignored.

End o thanks spams because they get banned from most threads for posting nonsense.

Loafing Oaf · 13-12-2018 8:31pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

According to that article, the only amendments that might conceivably be passed by the Senate are liberalising ones..

This nearly happened:
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/1213/1016979-politics-abortion-bill/

On Tuesday, a group of pro-choice senators put forward an amendment at committee stage seeking to remove the word "serious", because they felt the risk of threat of harm to a woman should be a high enough threshold to access to abortion.
The amendment was put to a vote at Report Stage today and defeated by 15 votes to 12; which means the word "serious" remains.

But it didn't, so full steam ahead:

Speaking on RTÉ's Drivetime, Ms Noone - who chaired the Oireachtas committee on the Eighth Amendment - said she expects the legislation to reach President Michael D Higgins' desk "very, very soon."

uptherebels · 13-12-2018 11:33pm

RobertKK wrote: »

How was he going to block it?
He had every right to have his voice heard in the Seanad, as did every other senator.
Debating a bill in the houses of Oireachtas should have varied opinion, otherwise we have a serious problem in this country.

You talk about people blocking. I would be seriously concerned with our parliament if people who were elected in either chamber and were not allowed to oppose a bill. What is happening with this bill. Politicians oppose all the time in our parliament.
All I see is people getting their knickers in knots because it is Ronan Mullen, who has every right to oppose if he as a legislator believes so.
..

Well then maybe the good senator should have spent more time putting forward more of his own well thought out amendments instead of putting forward word for word ammendments from Mattie et al , that had been defeated in the dail.
Even if by some miracle they got passed in the seanad they would have been rejected again in the dail.
Nothing but an attempt at delaying the bill to make himself feel better and get back pat's from the anti choice/religious groupies.
People aren't giving out because Ronan used his voice. It because he didn't use his voice for anything meaningful.

Loafing Oaf · 20-12-2018 2:55pm

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/every-county-bar-two-has-gps-willing-to-carry-out-abortions-893245.html
Every county, bar two, has GPs willing to carry out abortions

Fun guessing game:P: Leitrim? Roscommon?

Any word of MDH signing the bill? I thought it was supposed to be this week.

Hotblack Desiato · 20-12-2018 3:46pm

According to the constitution it has to be signed within 5 to 7 days of being submitted to him. It can't be sooner than that.

Loafing Oaf · 20-12-2018 4:42pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

According to the constitution it has to be signed within 5 to 7 days of being submitted to him. It can't be sooner than that.

Bill completed its passage through the Seanad on thursday night but it's not clear when it was 'submitted' to the Pres. How does that work anyway, slipped through the Aras letterbox? If that happened at some stage on Friday, then I suppose MDH has to put his John Hancock on it tomorrow if the proprieties are to be observed...

Riskymove · 20-12-2018 4:55pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It can't be sooner than that.

it can

with the agreement of the Oireachtas the President can be asked to sign sooner. However, I presume he hasn't been asked to.

Riskymove · 20-12-2018 4:58pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

How does that work anyway, slipped through the Aras letterbox?

Army deliver it to Aras and it is formally received there

Trent Houseboat · 20-12-2018 5:38pm

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/abortion-becomes-legal-in-ireland-for-first-time-after-bill-signed-by-president-1.3738504

It's done

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 20-12-2018 9:21pm

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/abortion-becomes-legal-in-ireland-for-first-time-after-bill-signed-by-president-1.3738504

It's done

Honestly never thought I’d see the day in my lifetime.

(before the referendum results, I mean. Obvs I knew it was going to happen after the ref happened)

gctest50 · 20-12-2018 9:32pm

Beechwoodspark · 20-12-2018 9:38pm

It’s such a mess isn’t it?

Huge amount of GPs and consultants (media hasn’t picked up on this yet) won’t take part in this and as far as I can make out simple Simon is just whistling hoping something drastic will change.

Billy86 · 20-12-2018 9:49pm

What is a 'huge amount' and what prevents they clients from simply going to others who will?

No need to hope though, something drastic has changed today already.

Loafing Oaf · 20-12-2018 10:00pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Of course there will be a handful of GPs who will take part but the vast majority won’t.

If you want to know why then direct your queries to simple Simon

Define a handful
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/abortion-taoiseach-says-around-60-gps-can-provide-service-1.3526634
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said he thinks 50 or 60 GPs would be sufficient to carry out abortions given that just six women in Ireland seek medical abortions every day.

Guarantee you the number participating will be a multiple of that

uptherebels · 20-12-2018 10:03pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Of course there will be a handful of GPs who will take part but the vast majority won’t.

If you want to know why then direct your queries to simple Simon

The vast majority don't need to. Contrary to what the anti choice side spouted before the referendum there isn't going to be a swarm of woman rushing to the doctor's because their holidays are going to be upset. The country only needs a couple of hundred doctors, which they will have no problem in getting. I'll will take a couple of months to get to full coverage.

Water John · 20-12-2018 10:03pm

This is a service that will be availed of by about 80 women per week. Don't know the number of GPs signed up but a relatively small number scattered across the country should have little difficulty providing an adequate service.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 20-12-2018 10:09pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

It’s such a mess isn’t it?

Huge amount of GPs and consultants (media hasn’t picked up on this yet) won’t take part in this and as far as I can make out simple Simon is just whistling hoping something drastic will change.

Each county only needs a smattering of GPs taking part to easily cover demand.

Billy86 · 20-12-2018 10:29pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Of course there will be a handful of GPs who will take part but the vast majority won’t.

If you want to know why then direct your queries to simple Simon

Care to back that up with... Anything?

NuMarvel · 21-12-2018 6:10pm

The Irish Family Planning Association have announced they intend to provide abortion services up to 9 weeks in the New Year:

"The Irish Family Planning Association provides a full range of sexual and reproductive health services in its two not-for-profit medical clinics at 5-7 Cathal Brugha St, Dublin 1; and Level 3, The Square Tallaght, Dublin 24. The clinics will begin taking appointments for the new abortion care service on Wednesday 2nd January 2019 for the first appointments on Monday 7th January 2019."

They've also said it's dependent on the necessary supports and protocols being in place.

"IFPA Medical Director, Dr Caitriona Henchion, said: “Our abortion care service can only begin as planned if the medication and pregnancy tests are supplied on time, and the protocols for rhesus testing and the provision of anti-D are finalised. Most important is the referral pathway.

“Our clinics will be providing early medical abortions up to nine weeks’ gestation. Patients who have their first appointment with us and are between nine and 12 weeks pregnant will need to be referred for hospital care. We cannot arrange those first appointments until we are certain those referral pathways are in place.”

Igotadose · 21-12-2018 6:12pm

NuMarvel wrote: »

The Irish Family Planning Association have announced they intend to provide abortion services up to 9 weeks in the New Year:

And... does the new law prevent protests? Because it'll be tested probably starting just after new year's. Maybe the GDPR can be brought to bear on some of the 'pro-life' types - if they take photos (for example), without consent they can be liable for major damage.

Hotblack Desiato · 22-12-2018 12:16am

Let's counter-protest! I'm sure those who had those angels' wings can dig them out of the attic...

GDPR or not there's no law against taking photos or video in a public place as there is no expectation of privacy.

BBFAN · 22-12-2018 12:17am

NuMarvel wrote: »

The Irish Family Planning Association have announced they intend to provide abortion services up to 9 weeks in the New Year:

They've also said it's dependent on the necessary supports and protocols being in place.

What's your point? This seems fairly logical to me?

NuMarvel · 22-12-2018 12:31am

BBFAN wrote: »

What's your point? This seems fairly logical to me?

No point as such. Just informing posters. It was expected that the IFPA would offer abortion services, but I think it's useful all the same to see them confirm the details and start dates of their service.

And it's also a useful counterpoint to those who claim (without evidence) that only a handful of GPs will provide abortion services in early pregnancy, because it shows that GP clinics won't be the only places where these services will be available.

NuMarvel · 22-12-2018 12:35am

Igotadose wrote: »

And... does the new law prevent protests? Because it'll be tested probably starting just after new year's. Maybe the GDPR can be brought to bear on some of the 'pro-life' types - if they take photos (for example), without consent they can be liable for major damage.

I think Harris said a law on exclusion zones will be introduced next year. In the meantime, any demonstrations/protests will be subject to the current public order laws.

And I don't think GDPR can be used to stop taking photos in public places. However, I think it can prevent the distribution or publication of those photos without the express consent of those who are identifiable in the photos. Not a GDPR expert though, so don't quote me on that.

BBFAN · 22-12-2018 12:50am

NuMarvel wrote: »

I think Harris said a law on exclusion zones will be introduced next year. In the meantime, any demonstrations/protests will be subject to the current public order laws.

And I don't think GDPR can be used to stop taking photos in public places. However, I think it can prevent the distribution or publication of those photos without the express consent of those who are identifiable in the photos. Not a GDPR expert though, so don't quote me on that.

You're correct, anyone sharing photos without the people in those photos permission will be in trouble.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 03-01-2019 4:15pm

Sooo, three days in and Love Both are picketing family planning clinics, and someone has set up a deliberately misleading website, mimicking the government one, to try and target women seeking abortion and pressure them out of it.

Pro life movement maintains its established level of class and integrity, even in defeat :rolleyes:

Exclusion zones are needed, repealing the amendment and getting legislation through were monumental achievements but the battle isn't over. Global events show us that it essentially never is, sadly, there will always be people who want to drag us backwards. Keep reaching out to your representatives lads.

SusieBlue · 03-01-2019 4:19pm

Their self righteousness and arrogance knows no bounds.
Every time I think they can't stoop any lower, they manage to outdo themselves.

ELM327 · 03-01-2019 4:20pm

I just saw the post in the "in her shoes" page about the fake my options page.
What an absolute shower of disgusting lowlifes.

eagle eye · 03-01-2019 4:24pm

Are there laws in place yet about who can have an abortion?
I voted for abortion because the law was archaic and unfair to women.
I'm against abortion for somebody who is just plain irresponsible. We have lots of drugs and other contraceptives to prevent against accidental pregnancies.

I'm fully in favour of abortion for medical reasons or if it's clear that the child will have an awful life if it's born. There are many other reasons why a woman may want to abort but irresponsibility doesn't wash with me as a good enough reason.
Also those picketers are only as affective as you let them be. Hold your head up high and walk by them without a glance.

ELM327 · 03-01-2019 4:28pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Are there laws in place yet about who can have an abortion?
I voted for abortion because the law was archaic and unfair to women.
I'm against abortion for somebody who is just plain irresponsible. We have lots of drugs and other contraceptives to prevent against accidental pregnancies.

I'm fully in favour of abortion for medical reasons or if it's clear that the child will have an awful life if it's born. There are many other reasons why a woman may want to abort but irresponsibility doesn't wash with me as a good enough reason.
Also those picketers are only as affective as you let them be. Hold your head up high and walk by them without a glance.

The legislation was published before the referendum which was for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.
Therefore anyone that is pregnant up to 12 weeks gestation can have an abortion on request for whatever reason they want.

It's not for you (or me, or anyone) to decide whether a woman is "allowed" have an abortion. That is what we removed with the abortion referendum

You can object but you do not have the right to tell her what she can do.

SusieBlue · 03-01-2019 4:32pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Are there laws in place yet about who can have an abortion?
I voted for abortion because the law was archaic and unfair to women.
I'm against abortion for somebody who is just plain irresponsible. We have lots of drugs and other contraceptives to prevent against accidental pregnancies.

I'm fully in favour of abortion for medical reasons or if it's clear that the child will have an awful life if it's born. There are many other reasons why a woman may want to abort but irresponsibility doesn't wash with me as a good enough reason.
Also those picketers are only as affective as you let them be. Hold your head up high and walk by them without a glance.

Somebody? Or the two people it took to conceive the child?
The best person to decide if she is in a position to gestate a pregnancy and look after the subsequent child for 18+ years is the woman herself, and the law now allows her to do that.
She will have her reasons, and that is more than good enough.
It doesn't have to be good enough for you or me because we won't be the ones responsible for rearing the child.

This legislation was proposed before the referendum and all this information has been available for months.

eagle eye · 03-01-2019 4:33pm

ELM327 wrote:

It's not for you (or me, or anyone) to decide whether a woman is "allowed" have an abortion. That is what we removed with the abortion referendum

Well I wasn't aware of that. I'm against abortion because you made a mistake. We have pills for both before and after, and other types of contraceptives too.
Nobody should be allowed an abortion just because they made a mistake and then didn't bother their arse to make sure to prevent it.
It should be against the law imo.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 03-01-2019 4:33pm

Without restriction up to 12 weeks, sickened for you but unfortunately your disapproval of the sex lives of women you've never met isn't (currently) determining their access to abortion.

Women having crisis pregnancies, miscarriages, fertility treatment, FFA pregnancies, and people who for all sorts of reasons might want privacy enter family planning clinics. They're a clear attempt to intimidate and shame people who are going through a very difficult and emotional (not to mention hormonal) time, and for whom "Just ignore them" is deeply stupid, glib advice. Regardless of their effectiveness, they're despicable in intent.

ELM327 · 03-01-2019 4:35pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Well I wasn't aware of that. I'm against abortion because you made a mistake. We have pills for both before and after, and other types of contraceptives too.
Nobody should be allowed an abortion just because they made a mistake and then didn't bother their arse to make sure to prevent it.
It should be against the law imo.

Too bad as that's what the people voted for.

I don't agree with you having the right to smoke, but my disagreement is not enough to impinge on your autonomy in your own home.
Same here. You don't get to control women. It's not 1940 anymore bud.

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Comments