• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

FG TDs want Government to include "sunset clause" in X-case legislation


Skyrocket

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
3,903
A number of pro-life FG TDs concerned about the government's plans to legislate for the X-case have put forward a proposal whereby the legislation would be reviewed after a number of years and rescinded if a majority in the Dail deemed it to have led to "abortion on demand" (assuming of course that the majority would be opposed to "abortion on demand") - in effect the legislation would have a "sunset clause".

I'm unfamiliar with any instances of previous legislation passed in the Dail having a "sunset clause" and it is best known in the US and Canada where Collins dictionary defines a "sunset clause" as "a provision of a law that it will automatically be terminated after a fixed period unless it is extended by law."

The exact details of how this would work in an Irish context would still have to be ironed out and it has already been put to Enda Kenny by Cork South West TD Jim Daly who urged him to accept the proposal. Other FG TDs known to be supporting the proposal include Lucinda Creighton, John O'Mahony and Tom Creed who initially came up with the proposal.

Labour bigwig Pat Rabbitte gave mixed signals on the proposal, saying he had no objection to a review of the legislation but didn't believe it was necessary to include a sunset clause.

Call for 'sunset clause' in abortion legislation - RTÉ News

This is a sensible proposal in my view and could avoid a division in FG when it comes to voting for the X-case legislation. Nevertheless, I am still firmly of the view that a threat of suicide should never be a valid reason for abortion and will await the publication of the legislation in full to see if it restrictive or permissive in this regard before making up my mind on it.
 

Radix

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
10,031
Drop the bomb and walk off into the sunset?

Wimps!
 

Tawdy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Messages
4,532
If only a sunset clause could be put on the lying politicians in the dail, look how far reaching that would be.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,845
WTF are they at? Are they idiots? The legislation is specifically being brought in to deal with a supreme court point that the current law is in breach of the constitution, and a specific order from the ECHR.

So what these morons are asking for is a clause in legislation to allow a future govt breach the constitution and the ECHR ruling? Cretins.
 

cricket

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
14,029
Window dressing. If, after a certain length of time, it is felt the law should change or be dropped, just introduce such legislation in the Dáil.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
56,230
I'm not aware of any constitutional validity for a sunset clause in Ireland.
 

Tawdy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Messages
4,532
WTF are they at? Are they idiots? The legislation is specifically being brought in to deal with a supreme court point that the current law is in breach of the constitution, and a specific order from the ECHR.

So what these morons are asking for is a clause in legislation to allow a future govt breach the constitution and the ECHR ruling? Cretins.


You have just, only just mind you, moved up a little in my opinion. :oops:
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
56,230
WTF are they at? Are they idiots? The legislation is specifically being brought in to deal with a supreme court point that the current law is in breach of the constitution, and a specific order from the ECHR.

So what these morons are asking for is a clause in legislation to allow a future govt breach the constitution and the ECHR ruling? Cretins.
It's just part of the general tendency to pretend that the X ruling has no real force. Through the Looking Glass stuff.
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,064
It is sensible to include a clause that will force a future government to have another vote if limited abortion legislation leads to wholesale child murder.
 

fgrep

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
1,230
Another referendum is inevitable, lets just put the question to the people and skip the bit in the middle.
 

USER1234

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,357
It is sensible to include a clause that will force a future government to have another vote if limited abortion legislation leads to wholesale child murder.
I was going to agree but as Sync pointed out if it is passed & then at some future date repealed we would be back in breach of the constitution, and a specific order from the ECHR.




Another referendum is inevitable, lets just put the question to the people and skip the bit in the middle.
Why is another referendum inevitable, & why do so when we already have the peoples answer??
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
52,092
I support this idea. If as Labour claim X is not abortion on demand, then they have nothing to fear as it will presumably then be renewed. If on the other hand it turns into abortion on demand then the basis upon which many FG TDs will have voted for it will have been proven false, meaning that it will have been passed under false pretences. That imho would justify it being amended or dropped.

Personally I believe legislation must place the burden of proof as to suicidality on the mother, so as to avoid abortion on demand. There should be panels of 3 doctors, who would decide by majority whether to terminate the pregnancy. I disagree with Michelle Mulherin TDs idea of 2 doctor-panels as this would lead to deadlock. Following the IMO vote I am no longer as concerned about such a mechanism resulting in abortion on demand, but it is likely that those refused abortions would challenge this refusal in the courts. I would hope with the benefit of hindsight, and cognaissant of the limbo which its vague 1992 ruling placed Irish abortion law (e.g. what exactly does "real and substantial threat to the life of the mother" mean, and how great does the risk of suicide have to be), the SC would in such a situation provide us with a far more precise explanation - or better still overturn X while allowing for abortion if the pregnancy itself threatens a woman's life. I also do not believe the right to life of the unborn should ever override that of the mother if the pregnancy poses a physical threat to her life.
 
Last edited:

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,845
Also worth noting: If you put this stupid piece into the legislation, it will get rejected by the President because it's got a clause in there which is unconstitutional and against the ECHR. If the President approves it, the supreme court will cast it out on appeal.

If it somehow got through and you have a vote on it in the Dáil, and the decision is to put the legislation back to the way it was, that STILL has to go to the President who will reject it because it's unbloodyconstitutional.

This is the dumbest suggestion I've seen in a while. This is a piece of legislation being brought in to address Supreme Court and ECHR concerns. The material within the legislation is irrelevant. It could be about the treatment of bunny rabbits instead of pregnant women.

I've no idea what thinking occurs in the minds of elected TDs who think that if the really REALLY care about something then the law and the supreme court and the constitution of the country stop mattering.

I can't wait for Daly to start doing the talk show rounds and get demolished on this by 1st year law students.
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,064
I was going to agree but as Sync pointed out if it is passed & then at some future date repealed we would be back in breach of the constitution, and a specific order from the ECHR.
That is a valid point.

The sunset clause needed involve the legislation being repealed. However, the Dail should be forced to reconsider the wording if the legislation is being interpreted too liberally.

Politicians do not want to deal with this issue. The same would apply if any proposed legislation resulted in too liberal of a regime. Politicians would bury their heads again.
 

seabhcan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
14,327
It is sensible to include a clause that will force a future government to have another vote if limited abortion legislation leads to wholesale child murder.
If such a thing did happen, why wouldn't a future government reexamine the issue? Nothing would prevent them doing so - there is no need for a sunset clause.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,046
If such a thing did happen, why wouldn't a future government reexamine the issue? Nothing would prevent them doing so - there is no need for a sunset clause.
A sunset clause would force them to face the issue. Given our legislatures penchant for procrastination it would concentrate minds.
 

fgrep

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
1,230
I was going to agree but as Sync pointed out if it is passed & then at some future date repealed we would be back in breach of the constitution, and a specific order from the ECHR.






Why is another referendum inevitable, & why do so when we already have the peoples answer??
What is the peoples answer/ and where and when was it expressed?
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
56,230
A sunset clause would force them to face the issue. Given our legislatures penchant for procrastination it would concentrate minds.
Why not concentrate their minds now and pass the right lsw?
 
Top