Proposed abortion Referendum

[orka]

I am looking at how similar this is to the legislation in England and Wales and assuming we'll end up in the same place.

I think what is being proposed is far from ideal but it is better than what we have now.

I think a big difference vs the UK is that the proposed wording (Head 4) is that the risk must be one of serious harm to the health of the pregnant woman - whereas the UK just has 'risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman'. Risk of serious harm is a much greater hurdle than 'more risk than if the pregnancy were terminated'.

Another reason we can be expected to end up with lower abortion rates than the UK is attitudes generally to abortion. Ireland IS different. The 30/35/40% no-vote demographic will never consider abortion. The 'totally against abortion in all circumstances' percentage in the UK seems to be sub-10%. So just as a starting point, our rates should always be at least a third lower.
Stricter legislation (above) and further differences in attitudes to abortion (the yes voters who wouldn't have abortions themselves but don't feel they should impose their views on others in difficult circumstances) will make these rates lower again. Probably all the way down to where they are today (possibly lower) - but with Irish women cared for in Ireland rather than exported as a problem.

 

[Purple]

Risk of serious harm

"Risk of serious harm"... unless that's defined in law it is totally up to the interpretation of the doctor(s) involved and it therefore subjective.
I've has a seriously ingrown toenail before...

 

[Purple]

Another reason we can be expected to end up with lower abortion rates than the UK is attitudes generally to abortion. Ireland IS different. The 30/35/40% no-vote demographic will never consider abortion. The 'totally against abortion in all circumstances' percentage in the UK seems to be sub-10%. So just as a starting point, our rates should always be at least a third lower.
Stricter legislation (above) and further differences in attitudes to abortion (the yes voters who wouldn't have abortions themselves but don't feel they should impose their views on others in difficult circumstances) will make these rates lower again. Probably all the way down to where they are today (possibly lower) - but with Irish women cared for in Ireland rather than exported as a problem.

I think that's very unlikely but that's not the point of the referendum.

For me the issues are;
Should we have this in our constitution? (For me that's a no)
Should we ignore it as we do now?(That's a no for me as well)
Should we legislate for abortion? (Yes, I think we should)

The rest comes after that;
What should that legislation look like? (I'd like to see it available up to 12 weeks with proper restrictions beyond that)
Is this just about a woman's bodily autonomy? (I don't think so as there are two bodies involved)

 

[dereko1969]

I have listened to the various debates and read through these threads and so help me I cannot make up my mind.

I have two difficulties:

On the one hand, abortion means taking the potential life of an innocent child.
I think part of my problem is that I would consider the killing of a living child to be particularly heinous and abhorrent, irrespective of that child's physical or mental condition or burden on its family and it is difficult not to connect that to an unborn child.

On the other hand, I could not condone putting a woman, girl or child through a pregnancy that she could not physically or mentally endure, irrespective of what "supports" might be available.

I just cannot get beyond this circular thinking.

What I do think is that I should not have to vote on this issue one way or the other as it should never have been inserted into the constitution.

I think the way to view it is that the abortion is likely to take place anyway, just not in this country or not safely in this country (via XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ordered online and taken without medical supervision), so would you rather export the abortion or have it take place safely in this country with family and medical support available?

 

[dereko1969]

I think that's very unlikely but that's not the point of the referendum.

For me the issues are;
Should we have this in our constitution? (For me that's a no)
Should we ignore it as we do now?(That's a no for me as well)
Should we legislate for abortion? (Yes, I think we should)

The rest comes after that;
What should that legislation look like? (I'd like to see it available up to 12 weeks with proper restrictions beyond that)
Is this just about a woman's bodily autonomy? (I don't think so as there are two bodies involved)

What proper restrictions apart from the ones listed earlier that are included in the Heads of the bill would you like to see?

 

[Andarma]

I think a big difference vs the UK is that the proposed wording (Head 4) is that the risk must be one of serious harm to the health of the pregnant woman - whereas the UK just has 'risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman'. Risk of serious harm is a much greater hurdle than 'more risk than if the pregnancy were terminated'.

Another reason we can be expected to end up with lower abortion rates than the UK is attitudes generally to abortion. Ireland IS different. The 30/35/40% no-vote demographic will never consider abortion. The 'totally against abortion in all circumstances' percentage in the UK seems to be sub-10%. So just as a starting point, our rates should always be at least a third lower.
Stricter legislation (above) and further differences in attitudes to abortion (the yes voters who wouldn't have abortions themselves but don't feel they should impose their views on others in difficult circumstances) will make these rates lower again. Probably all the way down to where they are today (possibly lower) - but with Irish women cared for in Ireland rather than exported as a problem.

Another difference is that the risk of injury to physical or mental health in the UK legislation extends to 'any existing children of her family'.

I think that's very unlikely but that's not the point of the referendum.

For me the issues are;
Should we have this in our constitution? (For me that's a no)
Should we ignore it as we do now?(That's a no for me as well)
Should we legislate for abortion? (Yes, I think we should)

The rest comes after that;
What should that legislation look like? (I'd like to see it available up to 12 weeks with proper restrictions beyond that)
Is this just about a woman's bodily autonomy? (I don't think so as there are two bodies involved)

The 8th amendment puts those two bodies on an equal footing, which is completely wrong IMO.

 

[Purple]

What proper restrictions apart from the ones listed earlier that are included in the Heads of the bill would you like to see?

I'm not a lawyer so I can't give you wording but it look to be totally subjective at the moment. Some clearer definitions and/or descriptions would be good.

 

[dereko1969]

Not relevant. The point is that they could have opted for a regime to deal with the hard cases. They made no attempt to do so and instead are pushing what is effectively an on-demand regime. This is not about hard cases but rather a Hobson's Choice of liberal abortion or the status quo.

In order to ensure the middle ground vote yes they are focusing exclusively on said hard cases while threatening/pretending that this is a "once in a generation opportunity" and sowing fears of would-be mothers dying otherwise; the mainstream print and broadcast media are largely on board with this disingenuous strategy.

But hey, liberal abortion was brought into the US on a lie and to the UK with the veneer of restriction, why not here.

You, and your friends in the No campaign, have singularly failed to ever provide an example of how the Hard cases can be addressed without repealing the 8th. You're using this as a wedge issue when the No campaign (and I presume you) opposed the PLAC Act which addressed the judgement in the X case, why was that opposed and now it's suddenly something to be looked at in the fullness of time when the PLAC Act took decades to be brought in?

 

[orka]

"Risk of serious harm"... unless that's defined in law it is totally up to the interpretation of the doctor(s) involved and it therefore subjective.
I've has a seriously ingrown toenail before...

And that was a serious issue for your toe I'm sure but I doubt it was a serious risk to your health...

For me the issues are;
Should we have this in our constitution? (For me that's a no)
Should we ignore it as we do now?(That's a no for me as well)
Should we legislate for abortion? (Yes, I think we should)

The rest comes after that;
What should that legislation look like? (I'd like to see it available up to 12 weeks with proper restrictions beyond that)
Is this just about a woman's bodily autonomy? (I don't think so as there are two bodies involved)

I generally agree with what you've said here (not sure on the bodily autonomy). I would be okay with availability to about 14 weeks but very strict conditions after that. If the pregnancy is not too advanced (less than 10 weeks maybe), I would also like the waiting period increased from 3 days to maybe 5 days or a week. I think time, talking and some perspective once initial panic has passed might mean different decisions are taken. Sitting alone in a panic waiting for the abortion XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX to arrive in the post doesn't encourage rational thinking.

 

[dereko1969]

I'm not a lawyer so I can't give you wording but it look to be totally subjective at the moment. Some clearer definitions and/or descriptions would be good.

How can it be objective though? It's going to rely on the opinion of Doctors.

 

[Purple]

And that was a serious issue for your toe I'm sure but I doubt it was a serious risk to your health...

Of course it was; if I have an ingrown toenail I am not healthy.

How can it be objective though? It's going to rely on the opinion of Doctors.

That opinion should be formed against specific criteria. At the moment it will be formed based on criteria frames in terms of vague non-medical language.

 

[orka]

That opinion should be formed against specific criteria. At the moment it will be formed based on criteria frames in terms of vague non-medical language.

But it will always be the subjective opinion of doctors. Objectivity can only measure what HAS happened (e.g. has lung function deteriorated below xyz level) but in these situations, the doctors are trying to prevent bad things happening to the woman's health - and that will always be 'in my opinion, this is likely to happen if this pregnancy continues'. Do you want doctors to be forced to wait until actual objectively-measured harm has occurred?

Not matter what specific criteria you try to legislate for, there will always be exceptions. I think getting two doctors including one obstetrician to agree that there is risk of serious harm to the health is sufficient. Not 'serious risk of harm to health' but 'risk of serious harm to health'. They will have to document what this serious harm is and why they think it may occur if the pregnancy continues. That's quite a hurdle - significantly higher than the UK's requirements.

 

[cremeegg]

I have listened to the various debates and read through these threads and so help me I cannot make up my mind.

I have two difficulties:

On the one hand, abortion means taking the potential life of an innocent child.
I think part of my problem is that I would consider the killing of a living child to be particularly heinous and abhorrent, irrespective of that child's physical or mental condition or burden on its family and it is difficult not to connect that to an unborn child.

On the other hand, I could not condone putting a woman, girl or child through a pregnancy that she could not physically or mentally endure, irrespective of what "supports" might be available.

I just cannot get beyond this circular thinking.

What I do think is that I should not have to vote on this issue one way or the other as it should never have been inserted into the constitution.

I was very much agreeing with this post until the last sentence. I certainly think that as a society we should have our best effort to resolve the two difficulties you mention in writing to frame legislation.

The task in front of us on Friday is to support or oppose the changing of the constitution to allow the Oireachtas complete freedom to legislate for abortion, without reference to the people. With an indication from the Government how they propose to legislate.

Credit to the political class they have put this issue before the people, and fostered a deep debate throughout Irish society. Now we must vote, no matter how much we would like to avoid the whole thing or how difficult we think it is to decide.

 

[Purple]

The task in front of us on Friday is to support or oppose the changing of the constitution to allow the Oireachtas complete freedom to legislate for abortion, without reference to the people.

But they are the people; this is a representative democracy. That's the whole point of having a representative Parliament!

 

[Purple]

Yes, so greater efforts and supports, primarily through social inclusion, need to be made to reduce the numbers wanting an abortion because of Downs Syndrome.

For instance, when I was a child, Downs Syndrome children were sent to a separate institution with other disabled children. Nowadays, downs syndrome kids are taught in mainstream schools – at least for the early part of their education. This may go some way to instill better understanding and more empathy about Downs Syndrome (and other disabilities) in my childs generation, that should they face that dilemma of having a child diagnosed with DS that they would feel less inclined to abort that otherwise would have been the case.

Other socially inclusive activities from big picture events like the Special Olympics to more local supports such as employment opportunities, sporting and cultural opportunities etc, all go toward ending the perception that a DS child will be any more a greater burden that a child without DS.

Reducing, or eliminating altogether, the concerns that prospective parents have about DS will go a long way to reducing the numbers of abortions sought on foot of a DS diagnosis.

Banning abortion does not resolve the issue of so many abortions sought on foot a DS diagnosis.

While I agree with the sentiment I'm not a fan of "big" government; there's only so much the State can do to socially engineer society before hitting serious diminishing marginal returns.

 

[TheBigShort]

While I agree with the sentiment I'm not a fan of "big" government; there's only so much the State can do to socially engineer society before hitting serious diminishing marginal returns.

I agree, the State cannot provide for every situation and emotion in this instance. But it can provide the platform(s) for identifying the issues that are at the heart of the demand for abortion and tackling those issues through increased awareness, funding, education, medical supports and overall societal attitudes to unplanned pregnancy and/or pregnancies diagnosed with disability.

 

[cremeegg]

But they are the people; this is a representative democracy. That's the whole point of having a representative Parliament!

Ireland has a hybrid system. A representative element through the Oireachtas, and a direct element through the requirement for a referendum to amend the constitution. You may think that some other system would serve us better, but that is the system which we have at present, and which has given us this referendum.

Personally I think the hybrid we have suits us very well. We have over the years, discussed and voted on, among other things the position of the catholic church, divorce, our position in Europe, gay marriage, and now (again) abortion, in our society in a way that few other countries manage.

 

[michaelm]

You, and your friends in the No campaign, have singularly failed to ever provide an example of how the Hard cases can be addressed without repealing the 8th.

Yeah, me and my anti-repeal anti-choice friends in LoveBoats .

Gay Mitchell's article in yesterday's Indo had a tilt at it . .

"If the proposed constitutional amendment on abortion was something like 'in exceptional circumstances, and by proportionate means as provided by law, provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies', the stated objective of the Taoiseach to have limited abortion available could be achieved, and the middle-ground would likely find this a better option. It seems highly improbable that a law governing the valid health needs of the mother, or one dealing with rape, or pregnancies where the overwhelming medical evidence is that a baby will not survive outside the womb, would be struck down by the courts, should "exceptional and proportionate" be the measure.

I was campaign manager for five EU referendums. Two of these were lost and were put to the people a second time and carried, when the real concerns of people were addressed. Current proposals should be rejected. If they are, more balanced proposals will, in time, emerge. The wording set out above could provide that balance."

 

[Sunny]

"If the proposed constitutional amendment on abortion was something like 'in exceptional circumstances, and by proportionate means as provided by law, provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies', the stated objective of the Taoiseach to have limited abortion available could be achieved, and the middle-ground would likely find this a better option. It seems highly improbable that a law governing the valid health needs of the mother, or one dealing with rape, or pregnancies where the overwhelming medical evidence is that a baby will not survive outside the womb, would be struck down by the courts, should "exceptional and proportionate" be the measure.

Yes because asking a woman just being told that their child will not survive outside the womb or will be have severe abnormalities that leave no chance of survival that they will have to go in front of a judge and explain why they don't want to carry on the pregnancy and ask for permission to terminate is not cruel at all. Just so they and numerous legal professionals can argue what 'in exceptional circumstances, and by proportionate means as provided by law, provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies' actually means. In the meantime, pro-life campaigners will be outside the court with their banners. Right to choose people will be shouting their two pence worth. In the meantime, a family just being told the worst news imaginable are caught up in other peoples agenda. Thanks but I will just hop on the plane to England. Oh wait, that's what some people want....

And yes, I know this is a 'Hard Case' and does not reflect the majority. However I know two families who faced that situation. One family went to the UK and the other didn't. Neither were right. Neither were wrong. Both have regrets what they did. Both don't regret what they did. It's not black. It's not white. It's not even grey. All I know the constitution wording at the moment achieves nothing. It doesn't save babies. It doesn't help women. It doesn't help anyone. This whole debate can start again when legislation is published if this referendum is passed and the lobby groups can put pressure on TD's and the whole thing will start again

 

[cremeegg]

This whole debate can start again when legislation is published if this referendum is passed and the lobby groups can put pressure on TD's and the whole thing will start again

In my opinion if the referendum is passed, legislation will be introduced and the whole issued will largely disappear from the public agenda. Those who will remain opposed to abortion will not be able to overcome the general feeling that the issue has been resolved.

If the referendum is not passed, the issue will remain on the public agenda, we can expect to see a rerun in some form or other within a few years.