• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Clare Daly's Abortion Bill - Do you know what's in it?


Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,703
The proposed legislation, which will very shortly be discussed and voted on, has the potential to have far-reaching consequences, so perhaps we should acquaint ourselves with what it contains. It doesn't limit itself to the provision of abortion but includes sections to carry out abortion without consent, provide abortions to children without parental consent and to attack pro-life opponents.

2.8.3: The consent of the woman shall be required for treatment
except where, in the opinion of the medical practitioner responsible
for her care and treatment, the treatment is necessary to safeguard
her life and she is incapable of or is obstructed in giving such consent.

This assumes that every mother would prefer to let her child die in order that she might live. We know that is not the case.
...........

2.8.4: The consent of a minor who has attained the age of 16 years
to medical treatment which, in the absence of consent, would constitute
a trespass to her person, shall be as effective as it would be if
she were of full age; and where a minor has by virtue of this subsection
given an effective consent to medical treatment it shall not be
necessary to obtain any consent for it from her parent or guardian.

Parents won't be allowed to protect their children.

...........

3.11 In the case of a person who, with a view to compel another
to abstain from doing which that other has a lawful right to do under
this Act, wrongfully and without lawful authority—
(d) watches or besets the premises or other place where that
other resides, works or carries on business, or happens to
be, or the approach to such premises or place,..
if that person is found guilty of an offence under section 9 of the Act
of 1997, the court shall take such conduct into account as an aggravating
factor in determining any sentence to be imposed on him or 10
her for the offence.

So, no pickets.
Clare obviously couldn't resist a go at the opposition... and free speech.

All this and more -
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2012/10312/b10312d.pdf

/MOD/ This thread merged here: http://www.politics.ie/showthread.php?t=201149&p=6088316 /MOD/
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,703
Section 2.7 claims to allow conscientious dissent for medical personnel but then goes on to make such dissent virtually impossible in certain circumstances.

No individual directly involved in the provision of medical
treatment governed by this Act shall be under a duty or be placed
under a duty, whether by contract or otherwise, to participate in the
provision of such medical treatment if he or she has an honestly held
and reasonable objection to so doing—

provided that..
provided that...
 

Grey Area

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
4,855
Half Nelson - Not ANOTHER abortion thread please - pretty please :(
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,703
Half Nelson - Not ANOTHER abortion thread please - pretty please :(
I wouldn't normally but this is about impending legislation, which afaik hasn't been discussed and imho is far more important and relevant that most of what has been posted here.
 

Grey Area

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
4,855
I wouldn't normally but this is about impending legislation, which afaik hasn't been discussed and imho is far more important and relevant that most of what has been posted here.
Suppose you may have a point.
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,703

Cellach

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
5,094
The proposed legislation, which will very shortly be discussed and voted on, has the potential to have far-reaching consequences, so perhaps we should acquaint ourselves with what it contains. It doesn't limit itself to the provision of abortion but includes sections to carry out abortion without consent, provide abortions to children without parental consent and to attack pro-life opponents.

2.8.3: The consent of the woman shall be required for treatment
except where, in the opinion of the medical practitioner responsible
for her care and treatment, the treatment is necessary to safeguard
her life and she is incapable of or is obstructed in giving such consent.

This assumes that every mother would prefer to let her child die in order that she might live. We know that is not the case.
It also protects the right to life of a woman who is unconscious. If a woman is unconscious, then we should assume that she wants her life to be saved unless she has stated otherwise in one fashion or the other. Surely this makes sense to you?


2.8.4: The consent of a minor who has attained the age of 16 years
to medical treatment which, in the absence of consent, would constitute
a trespass to her person, shall be as effective as it would be if
she were of full age; and where a minor has by virtue of this subsection
given an effective consent to medical treatment it shall not be
necessary to obtain any consent for it from her parent or guardian.

Parents won't be allowed to protect their children.

...........
From what?

3.11 In the case of a person who, with a view to compel another
to abstain from doing which that other has a lawful right to do under
this Act, wrongfully and without lawful authority—
(d) watches or besets the premises or other place where that
other resides, works or carries on business, or happens to
be, or the approach to such premises or place,..
if that person is found guilty of an offence under section 9 of the Act
of 1997, the court shall take such conduct into account as an aggravating
factor in determining any sentence to be imposed on him or 10
her for the offence.

So, no pickets.
Clare obviously couldn't resist a go at the opposition... and free speech.
How is this an attack on free speech? Free speech is already qualified. You don't have a right to free speech in many areas. In addition, this is already in the statute books.

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997, Section 9
 

Cato

Moderator
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
20,559
It's highly unlikely that this Bill will be accepted by the Dáil.
 

Mountaintop

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
1,263
You do know that, irrespective of it's content, it will be voted down, right?
 

Ulster-Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
10,092

Grey Area

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
4,855

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,703
It also protects the right to life of a woman who is unconscious. If a woman is unconscious, then we should assume that she wants her life to be saved unless she has stated otherwise in one fashion or the other. Surely this makes sense to you?
There is no provision to ascertain her wishes, just a blank assumption. She may have made her wishes known to her husband or next of kin but they are to be ignored.


From what?
From abortion, of course. I know it may seem far-fetched to some, but sometimes parents actually know what's best for their child.


How is this an attack on free speech? Free speech is already qualified. You don't have a right to free speech in many areas. In addition, this is already in the statute books.
If so, why the necessity for this section, which seeks to increase penalties.
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,703
You do know that, irrespective of it's content, it will be voted down, right?
It serves to demonstrate the mentality of many of those behind the current push for abortion legislation. Daly has promoted herself as a leader in the campaign for legislation and all of the pro-choice groups have rowed in behind her.

Well, now we can see what and how they are thinking, at least in part.
 

FrankSpeaks

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
4,625
From what I have seen of the Clare's legislation on P.ie, I would not object to it. But we know it will not be passed, because the government will not permit it as they will want to publish their own version
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,703
From what I have seen of the Clare's legislation on P.ie, I would not object to it. But we know it will not be passed, because the government will not permit it as they will want to publish their own version
If it is defeated, will it represent a setback for the pro-choice lobby, who are viewed as being represented by Daly and seem quite happy to be led by her?
 

FrankSpeaks

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
4,625
If it is defeated, will it represent a setback for the pro-choice lobby, who are viewed as being represented by Daly and seem quite happy to be led by her?
Where do you get that crazy idea from? The government have committed to introducing their own bill, it will delay the introduction of legislation on the X Case but only for a short time. The legislation is inevitable and welcome in my view.
 

Cato

Moderator
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
20,559

libertarian-right

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
2,492
If it is defeated, will it represent a setback for the pro-choice lobby, who are viewed as being represented by Daly and seem quite happy to be led by her?
lol, the bill was already defeated and is not a government bill therefore will never get passed through the dail, do you have any idea how our system works?
 

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top