Government abortion legislation post Repeal. Do you know what's proposed?

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
While there have been threads on whether the Government will repeal or amend the 8th, I reckon what's actually being proposed by government post Repeal has been overlooked.

I was very surprised today to see that posters didn't know what's being proposed. A poster strongly supporting repeal got it very wrong and a "don't know" poster thought proposed was legislation for hard cases only.

This link brings you to the Heads of Minister Harris's Bill agreed by Cabinet

http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/General-Scheme-for-Publication.pdf



What Government have proposed is legislation up to 12 weeks on demand. No reason for that abortion will be necessary.

Then on risk to life and risk to health (this includes mental health risk which is the clause in the UK under which more than 95% of UK abortions take place) up to viability at 23/24 weeks.

That risk Dr Boylan is on record as telling the Sunday Times some weeks ago should be “if the woman regards it as serious then it is. It should be the woman’s assessment of the risk that counts” .

Yesterday two letters were printed in the Irish Times with two different perspectives as to the reality of the legislation.




https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/the-eighth-amendment-abortion-and-the-law-1.3470054


Sir, – The Supreme Court has clarified in a recent case, M v Minister for Justice, that the unborn have no constitutional rights apart from the Eighth Amendment.

The British Abortion Act 1967 permits abortion where there is a risk to the physical or mental health of the mother. In 2016, there were 696,271 live births and 190,406 abortions in England and Wales.

Our Government is proposing that abortion should be permitted without restriction for the first 12 weeks of the life of the unborn, and in circumstances of risk to the physical or mental health of the mother, abortion up to where the life of the unborn child is viable outside of the womb, ie up to approximately the 23rd or 24th week of a pregnancy.

Therefore, our Government has proposed an abortion regime for this country that is comparable with that in Britain and more extensive during the first 12 weeks.

If the Eighth Amendment is repealed in circumstances in which the people know what is being proposed by the Government, it will, in effect, be impossible to challenge successfully the constitutionality of this expansive abortion regime, and it may prove very difficult to prevent a future Oireachtas from widening the grounds for abortion even beyond the current expansive proposal.

The citing of hard cases is not relevant to the proposal in this upcoming referendum. We are not being asked to vote for abortion in certain limited cases, we are clearly being asked to remove all constitutional rights from unborn humans.

We all value our own life. To set at nought the value given to the lives of any cohort of humans is chilling.

The enormity of the decision we are about to make as a people cannot be overstated. – Yours, etc,

SÉAMAS Ó TUATHAIL, SC; MARY FAULKNER, Former Dean of the School of Law, King’s Inns, Dublin; ELIZABETH O’CONNELL, SC; SHEILA O’RIORDAN, BL; TABITHA WOOD, BL; ÚNA NÍ CHATHÁIN, BL; DÁITHÍ Mac CÁRTHAIGH, BL, ELIZABETH MAGUIRE, BL, GRAHAM QUINN, BL; RODERICK MAGUIRE, BL, EMILE DALY, BL; LORCÁN E PRICE, BL, Dublin 7.


Sir, – In his Opinion & Analysis article of March 14th, “Supreme Court has given us clear choice in abortion referendum”, William Binchy suggests that the health ground for access to abortion outlined in the Irish Government’s recently published General Scheme of a Bill to Regulate Termination of Pregnancy will lead to “abortion on demand”.

To illustrate his point, he refers to the “health ground” under the 1967 Abortion Act.

This Act, which applies in England and Wales and Scotland, is often referenced in Irish debates on liberalisation of abortion law.

However, such comparisons frequently misrepresent its content.

The Irish Bill would permit abortion on request in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. However, between 12 weeks and viability, abortion would be available only on very restricted health grounds: where two doctors, one of whom must be an obstetrician, are satisfied that there is a risk of “serious harm” to a woman’s health. By contrast, under the 1967 Act, abortion is permitted until 24 weeks where two doctors are satisfied that the pregnancy poses a risk to a woman’s physical or mental health “greater than if the pregnancy were terminated” (Ground C).

This is not “abortion on demand”, as the woman’s decision is always formally subject to medical scrutiny. However, it sets a much lower threshold than that foreseen in the Irish Bill for abortions on health grounds at 12 to 24 weeks.

Abortion provided in accordance with best medical practice is invariably less risky than continuing a pregnancy to term, so in practice Ground C will invariably be met.

This is the ground under which the great majority of women, including Irish women, access abortion in Britain, with 92 per cent doing so within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Other than in emergency situations, the Irish Bill would not permit abortion after viability, even in cases of risk to life or risk of serious harm to health. Instead, in keeping with current Irish medical practice, doctors would be required to attempt live delivery, and to ensure that the baby receives all necessary care. Again, this differs from the 1967 Act, which permits abortion after 24 weeks in a narrow range of circumstances, including where two doctors are satisfied that it is necessary to prevent “grave permanent injury” to a woman’s health (Ground B).

However, fewer than 0.1 per cent of abortions take place under this ground. – Yours, etc,

Prof SALLY SHELDON, Professor of Law, University of Kent; Dr SHEELAGH McGUINNESS, Reader in Law, University of Bristol; Prof EMMA CAVE, Professor of Healthcare Law, University of Durham; Dr RUTH FLETCHER, Senior Lecturer in Medical Law, Queen Mary University, London ; Prof MARIE FOX, Queen Victoria Chair of Law, University of Liverpool; Dr JULIE McCANDLESS, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Kent; Prof JEAN McHALE, Professor of Healthcare Law, University of Birmingham; CIARAN MOYNAGH, Partner, McLernon Moynagh Solicitors; Dr CRAIG PURSHOUSE, Lecturer in Law, University of Liverpool; Prof MICHAEL THOMSON, Professor of Health Law, University of Leeds; Dr KATHERINE WADE, Lecturer in Law,University of Leicester.
 


gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
If you disagree with the proposed law, speak to your TD. If the law needs to be ammended, vote for the party that supports ammendment.

It is right and proper that the national parliament deal with these issues.
 

sadmal

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
12,064
I think a lot of people are of the opinion that what comes after depends not only on a Yes win but also the size of the Yes vote.

If it's a very small difference like in the second divorce referendum then any laws on abortion will be very minor ie Rape, FFA, threat to health as well as life of the mother.

If the margin is bigger than the 12 week abortion option will be debated but don't forget they're talking about a GE in early 2019 so that would likely put any legal changes on the back boiler until after that.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
It is the govts job to legislate.

If you dont trust them to do so, then piss off to a cabin in the woods, stop paying your taxes and dont avail of any public services.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
If you disagree with the proposed law, speak to your TD. If the law needs to be ammended, vote for the party that supports ammendment.

It is right and proper that the national parliament deal with these issues.
I dunno, a lot of TD's in 2011 and 2016 said they were pro-life. Then changed their mind.

They've clearly indicated what they will legislate for now.
 

Spanner Island

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
23,974
Yep - I know how this goes and what's being proposed... because I'm not a dumb ass...

And my vote will remain as it was from the outset.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
I think a lot of people are of the opinion that what comes after depends not only on a Yes win but also the size of the Yes vote.

If it's a very small difference like in the second divorce referendum then any laws on abortion will be very minor ie Rape, FFA, threat to health as well as life of the mother.

If the margin is bigger than the 12 week abortion option will be debated but don't forget they're talking about a GE in early 2019 so that would likely put any legal changes on the back boiler until after that.
The second letter above was in response to an opinion outlined that suggested (as in the first letter above) that it may prove impossible to legislate with restrictions as once the 8th is repealed, that other rights in the Constitution are to the fore (bodily integrity and privacy).

The Supreme Court last month made it clear that the only constitutional right to life for the unborn are contained in the 8th.
 
D

Deleted member 45466

I think a lot of people are of the opinion that what comes after depends not only on a Yes win but also the size of the Yes vote.

If it's a very small difference like in the second divorce referendum then any laws on abortion will be very minor ie Rape, FFA, threat to health as well as life of the mother.

If the margin is bigger than the 12 week abortion option will be debated but don't forget they're talking about a GE in early 2019 so that would likely put any legal changes on the back boiler until after that.
Well, they're wrong.

Harris's bill won't be effected by the margin of victory.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
Yep - I know how this goes and what's being proposed... because I'm not a dumb ass...

And my vote will remain as it was from the outset.
It's important that people know what is being proposed. That posters on this site didn't know is unusual.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
The second letter above was in response to an opinion outlined that suggested (as in the first letter above) that it may prove impossible to legislate with restrictions as once the 8th is repealed, that other rights in the Constitution are to the fore (bodily integrity and privacy).

The Supreme Court last month made it clear that the only constitutional right to life for the unborn are contained in the 8th.
No country in Europe has a specific constitutional mention of unborn life, yet they all manage to regulate abortion.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
No country in Europe has a specific constitutional mention of unborn life, yet they all manage to regulate abortion.
Mainland Europe operates under a civil law system, we operate under a common law system. I'm not sure what you mean?
 

midlander12

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
5,835
Yes, I'm fully aware of what's being proposed and I'd imagine most people are at this stage. The second letter published in the OP explains it very well.
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,415
The legislation is only "proposed". As such it is practically meaningless. There will likely be an election before any legislation is enacted. After the election all bets are off.

All that needs to be borne in mind is that if Repeal succeeds the unborn child will have less rights than a piece of chicken.

Repeal are already pushing for abortion on demand with no restrictions, on the Canadian model.


In essence, a Yes vote is a vote for allowing the killing of children up to nine months gestation; a No vote continues to provide legal protection for unborn children in one of the safest countries in the world for mothers and their babies.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
Mainland Europe operates under a civil law system, we operate under a common law system. I'm not sure what you mean?
That makes no difference to this issue. Its not a criminal trial.

Abortion was illegal in Ireland before the 8th ammendment.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
Yes, I'm fully aware of what's being proposed and I'd imagine most people are at this stage. The second letter published in the OP explains it very well.
I don't think they are. I've seem in recent days on social media and on this site today that some don't know or have gotten it wrong on what's actually been proposed by Minister Harris.

That's concerning.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
That makes no difference to this issue. Its not a criminal trial.
What's that got to do with what you posted?

One of the signatures on the first letter in the OP was a lawyer for McKenna, Coughlan and Crotty. So he has had first hand experience of successful constitutional challenges in fairness.

Legislators make the law in civil law countries. In common law countries Judges not legislators have the final say should legislation be challenged looking to the Constitution.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
In essence, a Yes vote is a vote for allowing the killing of children up to nine months gestation; a No vote continues to provide legal protection for unborn children in one of the safest countries in the world for mothers and their babies.
Abortion was illegal before the 8th ammendment.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
What's that got to do with what you posted?

One of the signatures on the first letter in the OP was a lawyer for McKenna, Coughlan and Crotty. So he has had first hand experience of successful constitutional challenges in fairness.

Legislators make the law in civil law countries. In common law countries Judges not legislators have the final say should legislation be challenged looking to the Constitution.
Are you trying to pretend that there is no constitutional law in France or Germany? Thatll be news to them - you should let them know.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
The legislation is only "proposed". As such it is practically meaningless. There will likely be an election before any legislation is enacted. After the election all bets are off.

All that needs to be borne in mind is that if Repeal succeeds the unborn child will have less rights than a piece of chicken.

Repeal are already pushing for abortion on demand with no restrictions, on the Canadian model.


In essence, a Yes vote is a vote for allowing the killing of children up to nine months gestation; a No vote continues to provide legal protection for unborn children in one of the safest countries in the world for mothers and their babies.
Not quite. What's proposed is Dr Boylan drawing up guidelines to deliver a baby at viability rather than killing the baby. Though guidelines are not legally binding.
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,415


New Threads

Most Replies

Top