Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Odhinn wrote: »

It's hardline nationalist with regards british activity in Ireland certainly. However the party - quite rightly - empathise with others involved in liberation struggle regardless of race or creed.

I would tend to agree that SF are not what I would consider "hard-line" nationalist as that has connotations to the xenophobic hard right fleg waving fraternity.

I think they are of a left-wing, self-determination, school of nationalism that the likes of Connolly would understand very well. It's the nationalism that believes people do best when they have self-determination - in Connolly's time the 'enemy' was the imperialist superstate that tried to mould other people into becoming whatever was the 'origin' peoples - so essentially in an Irish (Indian, Scottish, Welsh, South African etc etc) context English was best so everyone had to be as Anglo as possible as to be otherwise was inferior.

Things are a bit more nuanced now due to our society becoming more ethnically diverse - plus outward looking - and the definition of 'Irish' is broadening. It is the Right that has issues with that broadening, not the Left.
SF can accept the 'New' Irish easily (meaning ethnicity is not their sole definition of 'Irish'), but cannot accept that Irish people are best ruled by English people sitting in Westminster. They are not a million miles from the SNP politically- the difference is Scotland did not not follow the revolution route, did not have a war of independence/civil war, did not have 'British' troops on it's streets enforcing the status quo and so didn't have the 'nationalist' push back either. They skipped the paramilitary phase.
The sticky bit for SF is this whole Irish = Catholic trope.
The Catholic bit and the Socialist bit are not very compatible.

Odhinn wrote: »

Given the partys "small c" approach to catholciism (eg its support of gay marriage), I'd say they are - at best - al la carte catholics in the classic irish tradition.

Absolutely.
But it's still a dichotomy.

In the Republic, Irish people were a la carte in the classic Irish tradition when statues were spinning in various locations, people voted in the 8th, against divorce. It was just a different version of a la carte.
Currently we have RTE News Now interrupted every morning for a live stream of Mass.
The (incorrect) assumption in the South still is if you are white Irish you are a Catholic. People are just less surprised when corrected then they were even 10 years ago. However, people in the South tend to be uncomfortable when someone identifies as a Nationalist - for many this means bombs and Up the Raaaaah, while lately it's becoming Gemmaroids and racist loonies.


Sightly different in NI where the terms Catholic/Nationalist are pretty much interchangeable. We all know not all nationalists are Catholic and not all Catholics are nationalist but it's a powerful trope that doesn't apply in the republic.
But there the term Nationalist has in addition to the legacy of bombs (which tbh people in the South tend to have a much harder time letting go of...) also expresses the desire for self-determination.

In one jurisdiction political self-determination exists (squandered though it may have been by the continual election of muppets) and being Catholic isn't a minority thing with political undertones, it's considered the norm.
In the other your base is defined by religion mixed with politics where you are looking to literally destroy and rebuild the State you live in in order to gain self-determination - and your literal next door neighbours may be (sometimes violently) opposed to that idea.

SF need to bridge these two things.

And I think that's enough off topic

Abortion anyone?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yerra, sure tis in the Constitution now so it's mandatory you're entitled.

Sure go on so.

Odhinn wrote: »

Do you have gift vouchers for the abortioning ?

Cue editorial in the Irish Catholic & opinion-piece in the Irish….

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not just vouchers, but throwing in a free impregnation as part of the package no doubt.

That bit's available only to those with the correct insurance.

The PA is running this report that the N.I Secretary of state Brandon Lewis exceeded his powers by allowing abortion in N.I. The legal opinion is that of N.I,s A.G John Larkin QC based on the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The E.C.H.R.&.F.F was created by the Council of Europe after WW2, it's not an EU body and not the European Court of Human Rights [ECHR] that the UK Govt has an ongoing row with for some years now.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-secretary-exceeded-powers-in-allowing-abortion-39157743.html

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Westminster is sovereign over NI according to UK law, and it legislated for abortion in NI. Case closed.

The Tele is the voice of conservative unionism which is undoubtedly pissed off at the moment for this among many other reasons. O'Loan is a religious fundie from the other direction.

Public opinion in repeated polls in NI has been in favour of abortion legalisation for a long time now.

The usual opponents of democracy rear their ugly heads.

Death rattle from the throat of a dying whatever?

Cabaal wrote: »

I think pro lifers will likely ignore this and continue to use her to further their little zealot view.

LifeSiteNews has already dismissed it.

Igotadose wrote: »

Looks like the USSC struck down yet another anti-abortion law in the US. The WH isn't pleased. Way to go, Justice Roberts. Surprisingly liberal on occasion, though usually just pro-Corporation:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-law/

don't pat Roberts on the back too much. he struck it down because the SC struck down something similar a few years ago. On that occasion he voted the other way.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nevertheless, because he lost the argument that time around, he now regards the question as settled. He makes that quite clear this time; the decision he voted for here is not to his personal taste, but as far as he is concerned it is the settled law of the land and as a judge he must support it.

Pro-lifers will be very, very disappointed at this. Roberts has set his face against overturning the Supreme Court overturning its own prior rulings on this question, and overturning the existing rulings is precisely what pro-lifers hoped or expected that Roberts (as part of a Conservative majority) would do.

Don't you just hate when a judge sets aside their personal opinion and rules on what they reckon they law actually says.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is the minimum expected of a supreme court judge

It's not so simple.

The Supreme Court does have the power to reverse its own previous decisions, and occasionally does. Most famously, in 1954 it ruled in Brown -v- Board of Education that the provision of "separate but equal" public facilities for black and white citizens does not satisfy the constitutional requirement to afford all citizens the equal protection of the laws, overturning a previous decision (Plessy -v- Ferguson) which held that it did. This decision was a major landmark in the progress of civil rights in the US, and was much criticised by conservatives at the time as improper, changing the law in a way that should have been left to the legislature.

Conservatives since then have reckoned that, if the Supreme Court can reverse itself to develop the law in a progressive way, it can also reverse itself to develop the law in a conservative way, and a large part of the reason for welcoming conservative or (in Trump's case) pseudo-conservative presidents who will appoint conservative justices is the hope that, when there is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, the court might reverse existing progressive decisions like, among others, Roe -v- Wade.

And it's not an unfounded hope because, as already noted, the Court can and does reverse itself. So I don't think it's correct to say that maintaining existing decisions is "the minimum expected of a supreme court judge". A Supreme Court justice has to decide when existing decisions should be maintained and when, exceptionally, they should be reversed. And this decisions shows that Roberts is not as willing to reverse existing decisions (that he thinks are poor decisions) as some expected or hoped he would be.

robindch wrote: »

Well, they'll try again and again - yes.

But one does have to wonder about the degree of commitment to the cause. Republicans have been gaining votes from christians for 40 years with the "we'll reverse Roe vs Wade" line and they will lose their raison-d'etre if they ever actually achieve it.

A bit like when the Stuarts expected their landed estate landlords in Ireland to encourage the natives to stop being Catholic and impose fines on those who didn't convert... the landlords collected the fines and took a large administrative charge before even considering sending any of the dosh on to London.
London wondered why the natives were not converting.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Shockingly high number of abortions 6,666 last year. Any stats on demographics/income etc.

Interestingly shaped number you quote there. Where are you getting your statistics from? Nothing's been published by the Government afaict.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Shockingly high number of abortions 6,666 last year. Any stats on demographics/income etc.

MOD

In the interests of preventing back and forth and general bickering can you provide a source for that rather exact claim please?

eviltwin wrote: »

“THERE WERE 6,666 terminations of pregnancy carried out last year under legislation enacted following the repeal of the Eighth Amendment.

The vast majority of these, 6,542 terminations, were carried out in the first 12-weeks, official figures show.

In a further 100 cases, an abortion was carried out due to a condition that was likely to lead to the death of the foetus, according to the Department of Health.”


Official figures alright.

Linky?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Linky?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/total-of-6-666-abortions-carried-out-under-new-legislation-last-year-1.4292507

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Cheers.

Carry on as ye were everyone.

It did seem a little on the high side you have to admit. Don't blame you looking for a source, there's too little data.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It did seem a little on the high side you have to admit. Don't blame you looking for a source, there's too little data.

High or low is immaterial tbh.
It is simply better all round if people provide a link when they are presenting what appears to be factual information.
Saves bother.

For example were I to post

In 2019 there were 2,135 abortions performed in England and Wales to women recorded as residing outside those two countries, a decrease from 4,687 in 2018.

Then it is up to me to include https://www.thejournal.ie/how-many-women-travel-from-ireland-to-uk-for-abortions-5120161-Jun2020/

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It seems to be yes, but I think that was/should have been expected. For a number of reasons. Most of which Seamus covered here. Though I also wonder how significant is this reason here.

But in summary the figure from the UK should be presumed to have always been a minimum figure, not a correct figure.

digging further it doesnt such a big increase at all.

The latest statistics show the number of women has fallen from 3,265 in 2016 to 3,091 in 2017. This equates to a decrease in the rate of women travelling to the UK for an abortion from 3.5 per 1,000 women in 2016 to 3.1 per 1,000 in 2017.

One online provider reported that 1,217 women from Ireland “received the medical abortion pill” from their service in 2017. A second online provider reported that 878 women from the Republic “used the service” in 2017.

i make that a total of 5186. Not including those who travelled and used a relatives address in england.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/decrease-in-number-of-irish-women-having-uk-abortions-1.3522768

doing a comparison with others our abortion rate per 1000 is quite low. by my calculations 6,666 abortions for a female population of child bearing age (15-44) of 2,015,100 (at the last census) gives a rate per 1000 of 3.3. that puts us quite a long way down the list

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/abortion-rates-by-country