The C Case and the Referendum to Repeal the 8th Amendment

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,300
Several anti-choice posters on her have raised the issue of the C case and the statements from the woman at the centre of the case in 1997. I am not going to comment on her present situation or the statements from the woman over the past two weeks – I accept her bona fides about what she has faced in her life.

I do think it is important to look at the events in 1997 and I decided to go back and research the controversy surrounding the C case and write up a summary (and it is actually a brief summary) of the events during the two weeks leading up to the girl travelling to the UK for an abortion. I have used newspaper reports (I have cited the Irish Times but other newspapers carried similar reports) and Court documentation.

The news of the ‘C case’ broke in November 1997.

A 13 year old girl had been violently raped by a family associate while he drove her home after she finished babysitting his children. The girl was taken into care by the Eastern Health Board and placed with a foster family, another family from the Travelling community, in Mullingar.

The story broke in the Irish Mirror on 16 November. The girl, one of twelve children, was living on the side of the road in two dilapidated caravans (Irish Times 19 Nov). Her parents had approved her placement with the foster family and were concerned for her safety (A. and B. v. Eastern Health Board [1997]).

When the Irish Times reported on the case on 17 November the father of the girl was quoted as saying that he wanted his daughter to have an abortion. The reason why the case ended up in court was because the Health Board had no legal entitlement to procure an abortion for the girl and the case was to remove legal responsibility from the EHB and to allow the foster mother to bring the girl to England for an abortion with the permission of the parents (A. + B. v. EHB). Court records show that on 18 Nov the parents were actively encouraging the EHB not to seek a care order so that they could arrange for the foster mother to travel with the girl to the UK. The parents also stated that they supported their daughters desire to have an abortion (IT 19 Nov). At that hearing, the counsel appointed for the girl asked for a short adjournment to review the case. When the court reconvened on 19 Nov the father stated that he had changed his mind and was now opposing the abortion. The father had been aware that there was to be a full hearing of the case on the Friday and the change of direction had occurred after he had been provided with new counsel – Mr. Iarfhlaith O’Neill.

SPUC had issued a public statement when the story broke condemning the decision to allow the girl travel to the UK for an abortion (IT 18 Nov). SPUC condemned the EHB for making a decision to allow the parents and the child to seek an abortion. Mary Lucy had stated that SPUC were considering whether they would take legal action against the state. It quickly became clear that SPUC would have no legal entitlement to take any proceedings, so a change of strategy was decided when the 15-member SPUC national council met that evening.

It is not clear how Youth Defence came into contact with the family. The various anti-choice organisations claim that the family approached them – but it appears more likely that a member of the Travelling Community was a member of Youth Defence or someone from Youth Defence knew members of the Travelling Community and found out the identity of the family. Reports from the court hearing on 19 Nov (IT) state that the parents were accompanied to court by Peter Scully of Family and Life, his uncle Father Anthony Scully, Una Bean Mhic Mhathuna and several other anti-choice activists. Youth Defence announced that it had set up a legal fund to provide counsel and cover the cost of appealing the court ruling to extend the interim custody order with the EHB. The counsel hired to represent the parents was prominent anti-choice lawyer Iarfhlaith O’Neill. The court hearing heard that the girl was insistent that she wanted an abortion while the parents were now opposing it. The EHB was now forced to go to the High Court to sort out the legal difficulties. At the same time the president of the Irish Medical Organisation, Dr Neil Brennan, condemned the fact that the matter had come into the public domain, warning of the potentially serious consequences for the mental health of the girl (IT 19 Nov).

Anti-choice psychiatrist Patricia Casey now got involved, claiming that the girl would suffer long-term psychological consequences if she was allowed to have an abortion. Dr Siobhan Barry, a psychiatrist at the Coombe Hospital who specialised in psychiatric problems arising from childbirth stated that the girl faced the potential of ‘all sorts of (mental health) problems in the future’ if she went ahead with the pregnancy (IT 20 Nov).

At this point SPUC claimed that the state was ordering ‘the execution of an innocent child’ (IT 20 Nov). The IT also reported that the court had heard from a psychiatrist who had examined the girl who indicated that she was ‘happy’ in foster care. The psychiatrist outlined that the girl was aware of her options and wanted an abortion (IT 21 Nov). Youth Defence were now setting up a fund to provide for the pre-natal and post-natal care of the girl and her baby. Maurice Colgan stated that the fund had been set up with the cooperation of the parents. Youth Defence were accused of manipulating the situation because SPUC had received legal advice that it had no grounds to get involved in the court case – but by persuading the parents to change their mind to could mount the legal case they wanted to. The Irish Association of Social Workers demanded that the privacy of the girl should be respected and warned of the potential long term consequences of being at the centre of a media circus (IT 21 Nov).

On 21 Nov Peter Scully was claiming that the EHB had already flown the girl to the UK for an abortion (IT 22 Nov). This was an attempt to ramp up pressure as the EHB had no legal authority to do anything of the sort. This followed an 8 hour hearing in the Children’s Court. Again the parents were accompanied by members of Youth Defence. Iarfhlaith O’Neill was now arguing that the girl should be returned to the custody of the parents. The court extended the custody order and O’Neill indicated that the decision would be appealed to the High Court (IT 21 Nov). The court heard that the girl at all times has wanted to have an abortion and that the now the father said he would support her if she was suicidal (A. + B. v. EHB).

On Friday 21 Nov the High Court put a stay on the decision by the Children’s Court to allow the girl travel to the UK for an abortion. Niamh Nic Mhathuna said that Youth Defence were now raising money to provide for the long-term care of the girl and her child. It was also suggested that Youth Defence had offered to buy a house for the family, Nic Mhathuna rejected this and also stated that while money had been raised with the parents at the first meeting, it was not used to persuade the parents to change their minds about their daughter having an abortion (IT 24 Nov).

It was noted that a key factor in the decision of the Children’s Court to allow the girl travel to the UK for an abortion was the legal representation for the girl provided by family law barrister Gerard Durcan who was appointed by the state to represent the girl’s interests. Durcan acted as an independent counsel cutting through the anti-choice legal arguments and admonishing the role of the state in allowing the girl to end up in the situation she was in.

On 25 Nov Iarfhlaith O’Neill addressed the High Court in an attempt to get the ruling of the Children’s Court reversed. The High Court hearing lasted three days. At the same time anti-choice activist Bernadette Bonar, who was a member of the EHB, attempted to get the Board to accept an emergency resolution that it would not fund the abortion for the girl (IT 26 Nov). The National Traveller Women's Forum condemned the media coverage as a ‘form of violence against women’ and was particularly critical of Youth Defence exploiting the case of the young girl to further its anti-abortion agenda. The NTWF stated that "Traveller women feel they (Youth Defence) are exploiting this young woman's tragedy to present a particular point of view about abortion." (IT 26 Nov).

A battery of barristers were now involved in the hearing, O’Neill representing the parents, Durcan representing the girl as well as barristers for the AG, the EHB, and the ‘unborn’ and separate AG sponsored representation for the girl (IT 26 Nov). The involvement of the AG stemmed from the fact that the parents had previously given permission for the girl to be taken to the UK for an abortion (IT 27 Nov).

At this point the Catholic church weighted in with Archbishop O’Connell stating that he would consider funding a further appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary. The High Court made a decision for the abortion to go ahead, and quickly O’Connell abandoned any suggestion of the Church funding a Supreme Court appeal. It appears O’Connell’s comments were an attempt to pressurise the High Court into changing its stance. O’Connell condemned the High Court’s decision. As soon as the High Court decision was announced the funding to the family from Youth Defence dried up with Youth Defence stating that it ‘hoped other sources could be found’. The father claimed that he had not seen his daughter for six weeks and repeatedly threatened legal action against the EHB. He also denied that she had ever sought an abortion, despite he clearly acknowledging that she had in the court records. One other interesting comment made by the father was that he considered his daughter was ‘very mature for her age. You would take her for 16 or 17’. Asked if this meant she was mature enough to make up her own mind, he said: "I think she would if she was let make her own mind up." (IT 1 Dec).

At this point a further controversy arose with Youth Defence condemning a decision by the EHB to have a social worker present during a visit by the parents to see the girl. On 2 Dec the IT reported that the father was claiming that the EHB had ‘kidnapped’ his daughter. The controversy over access visits were now dominating the issue. It emerged at this point that a psychiatrist had submitted a report that the girls mental health had deteriorated over the week of court hearings and she was now suicidal. The EHB refused to comment but it appears the decision to insist that a social worker was present was based on their concern for the mental health of the girl. The father also claimed at this point that he had been coerced into supporting an abortion for the girl. He also made contradictory statements, first claiming that his family would raise the child, then that they would send the child to Jersey and then that they would put the child up for adoption. It later emerged that the parents had been refused access to see the girl because they insisted on bringing members of Youth defence to the visit with them (IT 2 Dec). The issue of a Supreme Court appeal was also addressed – the parents stated that they would not be appealing the High Court decision because they no longer had any legal representation (O’Neill had simply abandoned them after the High Court hearing). New arrangements were made for an access visit for the parents (IT 2 Dec).

On 3 Dec the IT reported that access had been arranged for the previous day. The parents and the girls siblings were due to meet her under the supervision of a social worker. Shortly before the visit the parents notified the EHB that they could not attend. The EHB then re-arranged the visit for later that day. This time the parents simply failed to turn up. At this point the Pro-Life Campaign issued a statement attacking the EHB for forcing an abortion on the girl. The EHB responded that it had "never decided on or sought an abortion for the child, or in any way influenced her decision in this matter" and that the girl had her own legal representative at the Court hearings representing her interests (IT 3 Dec). The girl travelled to the UK on 3 Dec for an abortion.

There is one very disturbing aspect to this story. On 24 Nov the Irish Times reported about the involvement of Youth Defence with the family. They reported that Youth Defence lavished the family with attention. The caravan was littered with colour photos of aborted foetuses and the girls siblings were playing with them on the side of the road and showing them to other children. The younger siblings of the girl had been taught by Youth Defence activists to tell their sister ‘don’t kill the baby’ when they saw her. It is worth noting that Youth Defence never denied these claims. The article concluded by stating “The travelling culture is very strict on women. They must be virgins when they marry and they must have children. Youth Defence is a partner in this world-view. They say she must have the baby.” It then went on to point out that Traveller women were fighting against these limitations, taking education courses, seeking outside employment and attempting to improve conditions for themselves and their families. The motivations of the father in this episode were also questioned – he owed significant sums of money to the rapist’s family and it was suggested that Youth Defence exploited this for their own purposes. It is not surprising that the EHB were concerned about the impact of an access visit with the family given these developments.
 


paddycomeback

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
1,908
Brief! From what she has said herself she was hijacked by pro-abortionists to further their agenda.
The same people will be in the SC in a few months demanding infanticide up to birth
 

Apple in Eden

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,705
Several anti-choice posters on her have raised the issue of the C case and the statements from the woman at the centre of the case in 1997. I am not going to comment on her present situation or the statements from the woman over the past two weeks – I accept her bona fides about what she has faced in her life.

I do think it is important to look at the events in 1997 and I decided to go back and research the controversy surrounding the C case and write up a summary (and it is actually a brief summary) of the events during the two weeks leading up to the girl travelling to the UK for an abortion. I have used newspaper reports (I have cited the Irish Times but other newspapers carried similar reports) and Court documentation.

The news of the ‘C case’ broke in November 1997.

A 13 year old girl had been violently raped by a family associate while he drove her home after she finished babysitting his children. The girl was taken into care by the Eastern Health Board and placed with a foster family, another family from the Travelling community, in Mullingar.

The story broke in the Irish Mirror on 16 November. The girl, one of twelve children, was living on the side of the road in two dilapidated caravans (Irish Times 19 Nov). Her parents had approved her placement with the foster family and were concerned for her safety (A. and B. v. Eastern Health Board [1997]).

When the Irish Times reported on the case on 17 November the father of the girl was quoted as saying that he wanted his daughter to have an abortion. The reason why the case ended up in court was because the Health Board had no legal entitlement to procure an abortion for the girl and the case was to remove legal responsibility from the EHB and to allow the foster mother to bring the girl to England for an abortion with the permission of the parents (A. + B. v. EHB). Court records show that on 18 Nov the parents were actively encouraging the EHB not to seek a care order so that they could arrange for the foster mother to travel with the girl to the UK. The parents also stated that they supported their daughters desire to have an abortion (IT 19 Nov). At that hearing, the counsel appointed for the girl asked for a short adjournment to review the case. When the court reconvened on 19 Nov the father stated that he had changed his mind and was now opposing the abortion. The father had been aware that there was to be a full hearing of the case on the Friday and the change of direction had occurred after he had been provided with new counsel – Mr. Iarfhlaith O’Neill.

SPUC had issued a public statement when the story broke condemning the decision to allow the girl travel to the UK for an abortion (IT 18 Nov). SPUC condemned the EHB for making a decision to allow the parents and the child to seek an abortion. Mary Lucy had stated that SPUC were considering whether they would take legal action against the state. It quickly became clear that SPUC would have no legal entitlement to take any proceedings, so a change of strategy was decided when the 15-member SPUC national council met that evening.

It is not clear how Youth Defence came into contact with the family. The various anti-choice organisations claim that the family approached them – but it appears more likely that a member of the Travelling Community was a member of Youth Defence or someone from Youth Defence knew members of the Travelling Community and found out the identity of the family. Reports from the court hearing on 19 Nov (IT) state that the parents were accompanied to court by Peter Scully of Family and Life, his uncle Father Anthony Scully, Una Bean Mhic Mhathuna and several other anti-choice activists. Youth Defence announced that it had set up a legal fund to provide counsel and cover the cost of appealing the court ruling to extend the interim custody order with the EHB. The counsel hired to represent the parents was prominent anti-choice lawyer Iarfhlaith O’Neill. The court hearing heard that the girl was insistent that she wanted an abortion while the parents were now opposing it. The EHB was now forced to go to the High Court to sort out the legal difficulties. At the same time the president of the Irish Medical Organisation, Dr Neil Brennan, condemned the fact that the matter had come into the public domain, warning of the potentially serious consequences for the mental health of the girl (IT 19 Nov).

Anti-choice psychiatrist Patricia Casey now got involved, claiming that the girl would suffer long-term psychological consequences if she was allowed to have an abortion. Dr Siobhan Barry, a psychiatrist at the Coombe Hospital who specialised in psychiatric problems arising from childbirth stated that the girl faced the potential of ‘all sorts of (mental health) problems in the future’ if she went ahead with the pregnancy (IT 20 Nov).

At this point SPUC claimed that the state was ordering ‘the execution of an innocent child’ (IT 20 Nov). The IT also reported that the court had heard from a psychiatrist who had examined the girl who indicated that she was ‘happy’ in foster care. The psychiatrist outlined that the girl was aware of her options and wanted an abortion (IT 21 Nov). Youth Defence were now setting up a fund to provide for the pre-natal and post-natal care of the girl and her baby. Maurice Colgan stated that the fund had been set up with the cooperation of the parents. Youth Defence were accused of manipulating the situation because SPUC had received legal advice that it had no grounds to get involved in the court case – but by persuading the parents to change their mind to could mount the legal case they wanted to. The Irish Association of Social Workers demanded that the privacy of the girl should be respected and warned of the potential long term consequences of being at the centre of a media circus (IT 21 Nov).

On 21 Nov Peter Scully was claiming that the EHB had already flown the girl to the UK for an abortion (IT 22 Nov). This was an attempt to ramp up pressure as the EHB had no legal authority to do anything of the sort. This followed an 8 hour hearing in the Children’s Court. Again the parents were accompanied by members of Youth Defence. Iarfhlaith O’Neill was now arguing that the girl should be returned to the custody of the parents. The court extended the custody order and O’Neill indicated that the decision would be appealed to the High Court (IT 21 Nov). The court heard that the girl at all times has wanted to have an abortion and that the now the father said he would support her if she was suicidal (A. + B. v. EHB).

On Friday 21 Nov the High Court put a stay on the decision by the Children’s Court to allow the girl travel to the UK for an abortion. Niamh Nic Mhathuna said that Youth Defence were now raising money to provide for the long-term care of the girl and her child. It was also suggested that Youth Defence had offered to buy a house for the family, Nic Mhathuna rejected this and also stated that while money had been raised with the parents at the first meeting, it was not used to persuade the parents to change their minds about their daughter having an abortion (IT 24 Nov).

It was noted that a key factor in the decision of the Children’s Court to allow the girl travel to the UK for an abortion was the legal representation for the girl provided by family law barrister Gerard Durcan who was appointed by the state to represent the girl’s interests. Durcan acted as an independent counsel cutting through the anti-choice legal arguments and admonishing the role of the state in allowing the girl to end up in the situation she was in.

On 25 Nov Iarfhlaith O’Neill addressed the High Court in an attempt to get the ruling of the Children’s Court reversed. The High Court hearing lasted three days. At the same time anti-choice activist Bernadette Bonar, who was a member of the EHB, attempted to get the Board to accept an emergency resolution that it would not fund the abortion for the girl (IT 26 Nov). The National Traveller Women's Forum condemned the media coverage as a ‘form of violence against women’ and was particularly critical of Youth Defence exploiting the case of the young girl to further its anti-abortion agenda. The NTWF stated that "Traveller women feel they (Youth Defence) are exploiting this young woman's tragedy to present a particular point of view about abortion." (IT 26 Nov).

A battery of barristers were now involved in the hearing, O’Neill representing the parents, Durcan representing the girl as well as barristers for the AG, the EHB, and the ‘unborn’ and separate AG sponsored representation for the girl (IT 26 Nov). The involvement of the AG stemmed from the fact that the parents had previously given permission for the girl to be taken to the UK for an abortion (IT 27 Nov).

At this point the Catholic church weighted in with Archbishop O’Connell stating that he would consider funding a further appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary. The High Court made a decision for the abortion to go ahead, and quickly O’Connell abandoned any suggestion of the Church funding a Supreme Court appeal. It appears O’Connell’s comments were an attempt to pressurise the High Court into changing its stance. O’Connell condemned the High Court’s decision. As soon as the High Court decision was announced the funding to the family from Youth Defence dried up with Youth Defence stating that it ‘hoped other sources could be found’. The father claimed that he had not seen his daughter for six weeks and repeatedly threatened legal action against the EHB. He also denied that she had ever sought an abortion, despite he clearly acknowledging that she had in the court records. One other interesting comment made by the father was that he considered his daughter was ‘very mature for her age. You would take her for 16 or 17’. Asked if this meant she was mature enough to make up her own mind, he said: "I think she would if she was let make her own mind up." (IT 1 Dec).

At this point a further controversy arose with Youth Defence condemning a decision by the EHB to have a social worker present during a visit by the parents to see the girl. On 2 Dec the IT reported that the father was claiming that the EHB had ‘kidnapped’ his daughter. The controversy over access visits were now dominating the issue. It emerged at this point that a psychiatrist had submitted a report that the girls mental health had deteriorated over the week of court hearings and she was now suicidal. The EHB refused to comment but it appears the decision to insist that a social worker was present was based on their concern for the mental health of the girl. The father also claimed at this point that he had been coerced into supporting an abortion for the girl. He also made contradictory statements, first claiming that his family would raise the child, then that they would send the child to Jersey and then that they would put the child up for adoption. It later emerged that the parents had been refused access to see the girl because they insisted on bringing members of Youth defence to the visit with them (IT 2 Dec). The issue of a Supreme Court appeal was also addressed – the parents stated that they would not be appealing the High Court decision because they no longer had any legal representation (O’Neill had simply abandoned them after the High Court hearing). New arrangements were made for an access visit for the parents (IT 2 Dec).

On 3 Dec the IT reported that access had been arranged for the previous day. The parents and the girls siblings were due to meet her under the supervision of a social worker. Shortly before the visit the parents notified the EHB that they could not attend. The EHB then re-arranged the visit for later that day. This time the parents simply failed to turn up. At this point the Pro-Life Campaign issued a statement attacking the EHB for forcing an abortion on the girl. The EHB responded that it had "never decided on or sought an abortion for the child, or in any way influenced her decision in this matter" and that the girl had her own legal representative at the Court hearings representing her interests (IT 3 Dec). The girl travelled to the UK on 3 Dec for an abortion.

There is one very disturbing aspect to this story. On 24 Nov the Irish Times reported about the involvement of Youth Defence with the family. They reported that Youth Defence lavished the family with attention. The caravan was littered with colour photos of aborted foetuses and the girls siblings were playing with them on the side of the road and showing them to other children. The younger siblings of the girl had been taught by Youth Defence activists to tell their sister ‘don’t kill the baby’ when they saw her. It is worth noting that Youth Defence never denied these claims. The article concluded by stating “The travelling culture is very strict on women. They must be virgins when they marry and they must have children. Youth Defence is a partner in this world-view. They say she must have the baby.” It then went on to point out that Traveller women were fighting against these limitations, taking education courses, seeking outside employment and attempting to improve conditions for themselves and their families. The motivations of the father in this episode were also questioned – he owed significant sums of money to the rapist’s family and it was suggested that Youth Defence exploited this for their own purposes. It is not surprising that the EHB were concerned about the impact of an access visit with the family given these developments.
And your point is? I ask after spending 15 mins reading this!!!
 

Cellachán Chaisil

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
9,841
Brief! From what she has said herself she was hijacked by pro-abortionists to further their agenda.
The same people will be in the SC in a few months demanding infanticide up to birth
I think we can see from that who was manipulating whom.

Futhermore, a lot of those names mentioned are very much part of the debate today.
 

Spanner Island

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
23,974
Seriously? Another f..u..c..k..i..n..g abortion thread?

Way beyond f..u..c..k..i..n..g ridiculous at this stage...FFS :roll:

Roll on Saturday...
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,565
The C Case and the Referendum to Repeal the 8th Amendment

"a brief summary"

time is too precious to waste it on a diatribe by a Looney Leftie pro-Abortion fanatic on the Miss C case,
especially as I heard Miss C herself on the radio the other day, explain that -
she never wanted an Abortion.
that the fact that she had one haunts her every day - for the past 20 years.
the fact that the pro-Abortionists exploit her situation to promote their agenda hurts her.

I understand that Miss C will be voting NO on Friday.
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,300
She spoke on RTE.
Yes she did - and it must have been very difficult for her.

It is also not the first time - in 2009 the man who raped her was sentenced to 21 years in prison after the brutal rape of an 86 year-old woman.

Miss C - who used the name Mary - spoke about the trauma caused by the rape, the fact her father had committed suicide and the fact that she is still living with the consequences. I do believe that she has suffered mental health issues because of the abortion (but I am not a psychiatrist and cannot guess at the real impact of the rape as related to the abortion). In the 2009 interview she didn't actually address the abortion at all aside from indicating that she would have given the child up for adoption if she didn't have the abortion.

My concern is that this woman is still dealing with the consequences of the attack she suffered and I hope the anti-choicers are not exploiting her for their own ends in this referendum in the same way they exploited her family in 1997. If talking about the rape and the abortion helps her heal then I am glad she has spoken of her experiences.
 

Hewson

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
8,271
Unless the owners have plans to change the site domain name to Pro-choice.ie I suggest they start dumping the now ridiculous daily threads on the one issue.

I got to the beginning of paragraph 3 here before my eyes glazed over.
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,300
The C Case and the Referendum to Repeal the 8th Amendment

"a brief summary"
It is - you could write thousands of words on this issue - I read maybe three dozen newspaper articles today as well as the judge's ruling on the case.

time is too precious to waste it on a diatribe by a Looney Leftie pro-Abortion fanatic on the Miss C case,
Maybe if you read it you could comment on the veracity of it - if you haven't then then spouting off demonstrates your approach to political debate.

especially as I heard Miss C herself on the radio the other day, explain that -
she never wanted an Abortion.
Unfortunately - the evidence from the period - particularly the evidence produced in court and recorded in the court judgement demonstrate the opposite.

It is possible that viewing it from that perspective helps her deal with her experiences and I have no problem if that is the case.

that the fact that she had one haunts her every day - for the past 20 years.
I would suggest that it is the rape that haunts her every day - unless you believe that she has got over the violent attack she suffered. Certainly the interview she gave in 2009 indicates that it is the rape that haunts her.

the fact that the pro-Abortionists exploit her situation to promote their agenda hurts her.
Can you provide evidence for this claim?

I understand that Miss C will be voting NO on Friday.
As she is perfectly entitled to do.
 

Gin Soaked

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
4,030
Do you seriously think this is going to over on Saturday ?
Firstly, good OP, well researched, Kudos.

God only knows. If it is a clear NO (+2%), then it is back to the drawing board.

Based on the legal nonsense after Marriage equality, this far more profound issue will be with the courts for months. Even with a clear majority YES.

The reality is, once we have the constitution amended, they will never seek to put in another provision which gives a foetus equal rights as a woman/mother of other children.

But don't be surprised if there is a legal wrangle at every turn on the way to terminations being available.

And then we have conscientious objectors in GP surgeries and in hospitals. And US style picketing.

We won't get violent wingnuts attacking doctors and nurses. We are not wired that way and it would backfire.
 

Round tower

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
7,295
Yes she did - and it must have been very difficult for her.

It is also not the first time - in 2009 the man who raped her was sentenced to 21 years in prison after the brutal rape of an 86 year-old woman.

Miss C - who used the name Mary - spoke about the trauma caused by the rape, the fact her father had committed suicide and the fact that she is still living with the consequences. I do believe that she has suffered mental health issues because of the abortion (but I am not a psychiatrist and cannot guess at the real impact of the rape as related to the abortion). In the 2009 interview she didn't actually address the abortion at all aside from indicating that she would have given the child up for adoption if she didn't have the abortion.

My concern is that this woman is still dealing with the consequences of the attack she suffered and I hope the anti-choicers are not exploiting her for their own ends in this referendum in the same way they exploited her family in 1997. If talking about the rape and the abortion helps her heal then I am glad she has spoken of her experiences.
The pr- choicers are now exploiting her in the same way that the anti-choicers exploited her back then
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,300
Firstly, good OP, well researched, Kudos.

God only knows. If it is a clear NO (+2%), then it is back to the drawing board.

Based on the legal nonsense after Marriage equality, this far more profound issue will be with the courts for months. Even with a clear majority YES.

The reality is, once we have the constitution amended, they will never seek to put in another provision which gives a foetus equal rights as a woman/mother of other children.

But don't be surprised if there is a legal wrangle at every turn on the way to terminations being available.

And then we have conscientious objectors in GP surgeries and in hospitals. And US style picketing.

We won't get violent wingnuts attacking doctors and nurses. We are not wired that way and it would backfire.
I agree - even with Repeal the anti-choicers will battle every step of the way - they are seeing the Trump America rolling back on abortion rights and the right-wing nutjobs in Poland doing likewise. Advocates for women's rights will have to continuously fight to maintain abortion rights for women with a crisis pregnancy.

As an aside - during the C case in 1997 Youth Defence picketed the home of Roisin Shorthall - she was chair of the EHB at the time.
 

johnnypockets

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
14,936
The pr- choicers are now exploiting her in the same way that the anti-choicers exploited her back then
It’s amazing how both sides think they have the define right to exploit any individual’s situation to whatever end they see fit. Disgusting.
 

Maranatha

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
776
Unless the owners have plans to change the site domain name to Pro-choice.ie I suggest they start dumping the now ridiculous daily threads on the one issue.

I got to the beginning of paragraph 3 here before my eyes glazed over.
Actually the site has had a fair share of both pro-life and pro-abortion threads. The Mods are pro-abortion for the most part from what I can tell. The only issue I had was the censorship of a video/link I posted (NYCKY removed it) from Vimeo of the remains of several pre-12 week gestation babies/foetuses post-abortion. If we were discussing heart surgery would a post featuring a video of an operation in progress be censored? I think not. You have to be seriously hard of heart not to see the humanity for yourself in the video... the little hands and feet.. I think you get the point.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top