So Why ARE Women With Non-Viable Pregnancies Being Forced To Travel To The UK?

at

Jennifer Schweppe (above), from the school of law at the University of Limerick, appeared at the Joint Committee on Health and Children hearing on abortion legislation this morning..

She said that, it is her understanding, that women who have been told their foetuses have zero chance of survival are legally permitted to have terminations in Ireland.

She claimed this is based on the Roche Vs Roche ruling in the Supreme Court in December, 2009.

This case involved Mary Roche, then 43, who was estranged from her husband, but who wanted to use three frozen embryos created from a previous IVF treatment, to have more children.

Mr Roche did not want this to take place.

Mrs Roche argued that the frozen embryos constituted the ‘unborn’ under Article 40.3.3 of the constitution. She claimed the State was ‘obliged to facilitate their implantation’.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the term ‘unborn’ in Article 40.3.3 only applies to embryos after they’ve been implanted in the womb. It doesn’t apply to frozen embryos and therefore, they cannot be afforded the legal right to life as guaranteed by the Constitution.

The now Chief Justice Susan Denham ruled there must be a physical connection between the mother and her unborn child in order for the embryo to be afforded the right to life.

Jennifer Schweppe: “My position on this is, and I think that I’m correct in stating the law as to be, where the foetus has no capacity to survive outside the womb, that that is not life for the purposes of Article 40.3.3. So when we talk about ‘unborn life’ in the constitution what we’re talking about, as Ms Justice Denham,stated in the Roche and Roche case, we’re talking about life which has the capacity to be born.

Now in that case, it did relate to embryos, so embryos which were implanted in the womb. But I think that her reason and her logic in relation to what the constitution protects and what it doesn’t protect, I think it applies in relation to foetuses which have absolutely no capacity to be brought to term and to produce a living baby. I don’t think that Article 40.3.3 applies there.
“Perhaps, as a matter of clarity, the legislation should, in a declaratory manner, state that. But I don’t think we need a constitutional amendment where, as a matter of probability, doctors are of the opinion that the foetus has no capacity to be born. I think that that’s the legal situation.
“The problem I guess arises where doctors are of the opinion that the foetus has the capacity to be born but that it will only survive for a short period of time, be it a matter of days, a matter of weeks. Tragically, I think that in circumstances such as that the constitution does not permit termination of pregnancy and unfortunately women in that position do currently need to travel to terminate those pregnancies.
“I don’t agree with this position. I didn’t see the Vincent Browne show last night [Arlette Lyons from from the group Termination For Medical Reasons (TFMR)] appeared] but I think that a constitutional amendment would be required in those cases, where there is prospect of life outside the womb, where the pregnancy is a viable one. But where we talk about inevitable miscarriage, as Dr [Simon] Mills [who had spoken earlier] talked about, where we talk about where the foetus has no capacity to be born alive. So, adopting the born to alive rule, I don’t think a constitutional amendment is needed, I do think that legislation should include a declaratory statement to that effect and permit medical practitioners to terminate pregnancies in those circumstances.”

Anyone?

Earlier: What Rhona Said

(RTE)

132 thoughts on “So Why ARE Women With Non-Viable Pregnancies Being Forced To Travel To The UK?

  1. Arbs

    The so-called pro-life principle is a hollow one and can exist only because of the possibility of abortion in Britain. The unspoken aspiration of the so-called pro-life movement is that in cases of rape, incest and fetal abnormality incompatible with life, the Oireachtas may not have to deal with such matters because these women will in all likelihood go quietly away to the neighbouring jurisdiction. It is the most base and gross of hypocrisy. Ireland can only ever remain “pro-life”, a term devoid of substance, because Great Britain is pro-choice.

        1. Sido

          Nobody said anyone was “forcing them” ABM.

          It is non the less the case that Ireland exports its problems to the UK. The Pro Life arguments should be seen as the sham that they are.

          Catholic hypocrisy and entitlement.

          Its about who gets to boss who about in Ireland.

          1) You didn’t answer my question about whether you were an American or not.

          2) You don’t appear to have apoligised to Arbs for your outrageous defamation the other night.

          1. Arbs

            I wouldn’t be surprised if ABM was a fragile albeit overly-zealous young clerical student or an aspiring one at that. He appears from previous comments to have quite some knowledge of what it is to have a “vocation”, has given insight into seminary life, gets all caught up below with who can and cannot call themselves Catholic and finally he does rather have a lot of time on his hands. I am minded of the RC Archbishop Martin’s words in Glenties last summer: Having highlighted the vocations crisis in Ireland, he then made some extraordinary criticisms of some of the young men who present themselves as candidates for the priesthood.
            He said: “Many of the candidates who present are fragile and some are much more traditional than those who went before them.” While ABM might doubtless deny this, I wouldn’t be surprised were he one of this crop.

        2. Arbs

          Wow, you applied the full might of your intellectual rigour and socratic sophistication to this one.

  2. Arbs

    ABM will doubtless troll this article. In this event I would like to remind readers how pro-life he is. I might disagree with others of the pro-life persuasion on here but none have stooped this low. For those who missed it, ABM by way of reply to me imagined a homosexual sexual encounter involving me and my supposed boyfriend (even though I have neither ever alluded to my sex nor sexuality) culminating in a “bloodied underpants” discovered by my mother. Naturally BS deleted this telling and tragic abuse but it rather does gives one an insight into the macabre machinations of ABM’s so-called pro-life mind and says rather a lot about him, don’t you think? Whatever about his own personal struggles and questionable internet activities and might I remind ABM that was the third occasion that the BS moderator had to delete his reply to me involving graphic and frenzied depictions of how he imagines (i.e. what viewing pornography has taught ABM) homosexual sex which he imputes to me. ABM then laughably tries to paint yourself as some sort of over zealous, religiously inspired, pro-life activist when the reality is doubtless far less savoury and far more unpalatable. Here’s a tip ABM, if you want to claim the moral high-ground as a pro-lifer, suggesting gay people can, to quote you, “go off and get Aids and die”, doesn’t really advance your cause.

      1. Arbs

        Harassing you. Physician heal thyself! Selective amnesia now? Don’t you like being reminded of this? You shouldn’t allow yourself to be smoked out then.

        1. ABM

          Reading further into your little rant: If you’re going to quote using inverted commas, you really ought to get your facts straight. I ask that you withdraw the inaccuracies. Then again, dishonesty and lies are the tools of your trade so I wouldn’t expect a retraction.

          1. sickofallthisbs

            Would you two stop pulling each others’ pigtails/genitalia, whatever it is the kids are doing these days.

          2. ABM

            Hello Arbs! Where did I say “go off and get Aids and die”? Put up or shut up.

            On this site, I have been butt end of rape jokes, suicide jokes, wishes that I was aborted, foul language, abuse, homophobic bullying, and censorship. For a liberal site, it’s pretty illiberal and intolerant.

            Remember Arbs, you’re the one who started all this unpleasantness. All because you find the opinions of someone else to your dislike.

          3. Arbs

            But dearest ABM, you appear not to need any incentive to engage in homophobia and bigotry yourself. It is not wholly reactionary on your part. Let me show my hand: I’m engaging in a practice called “trolling the troll” with remarkable success. The depths to which you sunk in replying to me make your points now utterly redundant and reveal quite a lot about the type of person you are. Now and again I’ll remind you of those remarks. You know what you’ve said about gay people do don’t start splitting hairs and casting doubt. Pro-life my foot! Oh diddums!

          4. Arbs

            If there is one thing we agree on: those three replies to me should never have been deleted by the moderator. One and all should be allowed to see what’s going on upstairs in your macabre mind.

          5. Arbs

            Yet you are still replying to me. And please don’t equate my tactics with your gutter views. “Bloodied underpants” – what the hell is going on in your mind?

          6. Sido

            @ ABM why did you stop reading Arbs comments after the first sentence?

            Is it because you know that you get a bit rude when you hit the bottle?

            You should maybe stick to the porn after a couple of pints

        1. ABM

          Anti-homosexual behaviour != homophobia and hatred.

          But hey, don’t let rationality and reason stop you from trying to equate the two.

          1. Jess

            Expressing ‘anti-homosexual behaviour’ in the particularly vicious and spiteful way you have such a way with is literally homophobia and incitement to hatred. That’s why the worst of your comments have been deleted, because they’re disgustingly bigoted and hateful.

      2. Karly

        Well done Arbs! You’ve exposed him as a pure and unadulterated bigot. He deserves to be reminded. I saw that sick comment a few days ago.

    1. sickofallthisbs

      Thanks for the update on your online fights with strangers. I was afraid I had missed something.

        1. Jess

          Honestly man, I think ABM is a reprehensible douche too but there’s no need to pre-empt his little rants.

          1. Karly

            Agreed. Still, it was remarkably easy to smoke ABM out. I guess I’m just gloating a tad. In any event my work is done in this regard now but I’ll remind ABM now and again, especially when ABM risibly tries to assume the moral high ground.

        1. sickofallthisbs

          Apologies I did not see the original, but I might add that I don’t care. I find it a little sad when two people, presumably adults, engage in such pathetic “but you said this” diatribes about one another; particularly on the internet.

          1. 12308912

            why particularly the internet?Seems like the perfect place to me,if somebody needs to be reacquainted with their previous comments verbatim.

  3. ABM

    I hope the opinions of Ms Schweppe of the University of Limerick are duly noted.

    I see the religious and moral leaders (Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Humanist and Jewish) of this country are being deliberatly excluded from this abortion-on-demand debate.

        1. VinLieger

          Once again proving you actually dont ivestigate your outrageous statements before making them and declaring them “facts”

      1. Limey Tank

        I surely hope Atheists (for they too are as qualified to be moral leaders as any religious person) will be included also….

        1. Jess

          Atheist Ireland, as official a representative organisation as can be gathered for a group of otherwise unaffilated people, will be represented at the morning session :3

          1. ABM

            as official a representative organisation as can be gathered for a group of otherwise unaffilated people LOL I don’t know why the Government allow this motley lot of smug pro-choicers a say.

          2. Jess

            Isn’t this the same as the point you made below, though? that Atheists are too diverse to be represented by a single organisation?

            I don’t think Atheist Ireland is the same kind of organisation as any of the religions above to be honest; whereas religions generally rely on a number of shared beliefs, traditions and observances, the only single thing atheists necessarily have in common is a lack of belief in a deity. I don’t count myself a member of Atheist Ireland any more than I consider myself a member of the Catholic Church.

            If religions are being asked for their opinions on abortion, however, I think it’s fair that those who have no belief are represented somehow also, and I hope Atheist Ireland do a good job of such.

          1. ABM

            Atheist Ireland speak for all atheists now do they? I know a handful of pro-life atheists. For them to adopt a pro-choice or pro-life stance is to misrepresent atheists. Organisations that bear no responsibility for the words, behaviour and actions of their members can’t have it both ways.

          2. Jess

            Atheist Ireland do not speak for all atheists in this, just like I imagine the representatives of the Catholic Church do not speak for all Catholics(as I know plenty of pro-choice Catholics).

          3. ABM

            The catholic church does act on behalf of all professed catholics. (unless of course you’re Irish and a la carte, in which case, you simply make up your own moral viewpoint of the world, no matter what your qualification or lack thereof).

          4. Jess

            Well, I can’t speak for the CC or its members but who speaks for the pro-choice Catholics? Or do you not consider them real Catholics since they believe in tolerance? :3

          5. ABM

            Any person who identifies as being catholic and pro-choice is not in communion with the catholic church and should not receive Holy Communion. It’s that simple.

          6. Jess

            Does that mean they’re not Catholic? I think if you excluded everyone who doesn’t exactly toe the hardcore line of the CC from your ranks then the apparent ‘Catholic majority’ of Ireland would be a myth.

        2. ABM

          Atheists don’t organise. Atheists are ad-hoc in nature and share diverse opinions. If atheists want a voice in the public square, they either stand solo on a soap box or else define a set of shared views that they can nominate someone to present. Atheists believe they are free-thinkers and can rationalise the universe for themselves and don’t need any hierarchies or authorities to think on their behalf.

          1. Jess

            Does that mean all religious people think exactly the same as each other?

            Atheists are as diverse in our beliefs as deists are. No group in society is a monolith.

          2. ABM

            On matters pertaining to faith and morals (yes, abortion is a moral issue); Catholics are united. Hence the word catholic.

          3. Jess

            I personally agree, but people are free to call themselves Catholic if they like. Unless you excommunicate them, they remain part of the Catholic Church – and I don’t imagine the Church is going to excommunicate everyone who doesn’t bother to keep up with the traditional hatred and intolerance of women and gay people or they might find their congregations and cultural influence rather a lot smaller.

          4. ABM

            The church does not hate women or gay people. Firstly, the Virgin Mary is second only to God. There are countless women saints. The church couldn’t do its work were it not for women.

            On homosexuals: those suffering from a homosexual inclination are called to chastity. As are single men and single women. Homosexuals are to be treated with compassion and respect like you would any other person.

            Any hatred directed towards homosexuals is to be condemned. I’ll admit that my choice of words wrt homosexuals is often unsympathetic to the (no doubt) homosexual readers of broadsheet.ie, but we’re all sinners and we all get angry from time to time. This, therefore is an apology to anyone who may have been offended by my remarks in recent days.

          5. Arbs

            Your “bloodied underpants” comment to me 2 days ago (along with the two other previous deleted ones containing graphic depictions of unprotected sex which you impute to me) is offensive not only to homosexual readers of broadsheet.ie but to ALL readers of broadsheet.ie You do your own so-called pro-life cause no favours with this low behaviour- I can only hope that this is some sort of road to Damascus experience on your part and you might start questioning why you hold such repulsive views about your fellow man and why you feel the need to condemn homosexuality with such (telling in my opinion) virulence.

          6. ABM

            Is typing the words “apology accepted” really that hard? It’s pretty uncharitable of you not to accept my apology.

            With respect to the “bloody underpants” imagery I used — this is the reality of gay “sex”. I understand this is a horrible image, but it’s one that’s all too conveniently ignored by homosexuals and those supporters of the homosexual lifestyle. Presenting to a qualified doctor with such injuries is your best bet.

          7. Arbs

            “This is the reality of gay sex”. How do you know? You appear to have a huge and frenzied interest in what two men can get up to in the bedroom, it’s quite telling, don’t you think? Never two women though. BTW is you had any understanding (or experience) of human sexual expression, you would realise how laughable this is. You hand it to me on plate once again. I’ll be reminding you (and others) of this tomorrow! You poor sod.

          8. Arbs

            What kind of internet sites are you “engaging with” to come up with the above supposition? I’ll bet your internet browsing history presents a grim and ghastly picture. Anyhow, let’s see what people make of it tomorrow, shall we. Nighty, my crazed troll!

          9. DAN

            How on earth can you claim atheist’s don’t organise while talking about a specifically atheist organisation?
            And there is a view atheists all subscribe to, that the religious beliefs of others have no authority over us.

    1. True Kilockian

      Of course they are. After all Fine Gael have always been an anti Catholic rabidly liberal political party.
      As Oliver J Flanagan said:
      If you don’t like abortions don’t have an abortion.

    2. Jess

      Specifically, if you want to watch it live:
      Thursday, 10 January

      Session 1: 9.30am – 11.30am

      Irish Catholic Bishops Conference
      Church of Ireland
      Presbyterian Church of Ireland
      Methodist Church of Ireland
      Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland
      Atheist Ireland

      Session 2: 11.45am – 1.45pm

      Caroline Simons and Dr Berry Kiely of the Pro-Life Campaign
      Dr Eoghan de Faoite and Dr Seán O’Domhnaill of Youth Defence
      Patrick Carr and David Manley of Family & Life
      Breda O’Brien of the Iona Institute

      Session 3: 2.45pm – 4.45pm

      Sinéad Ahern of Choice Ireland
      Orla O’Connor, National Women’s Council of Ireland
      Director of Action on X

        1. Blobster

          I imagine organisations asked to attend could have nominated more than one person if they wished….I doubt Jerry Buttimer would leave his committee open to such an obvious source of criticism (although I, personally don’t think the weight of an argument is increased by cramming more people into the front seats).

          1. Niamh

            Doesn’t explain why TFMR Ireland were excluded from the hearings, despite requesting to be included several times. The group is comprised of women (and the partners of women) who had to travel abroad to have abortions for medical reasons.

          2. Blobster

            Thanks Niamh. I wasn’t aware of that. I wonder has Jerry Buttimer given a reason? Did they not get a letter of response/rejection? Is it the case that the committee felt that their particular points were outside of the remit of this hearing? As valid as they are they may have been deemed irrelevant (in the strict sense of that word) to this particular, quite narrow debate?

          3. Niamh

            No idea. This is the only info I can find on it:
            http://www.thejournal.ie/group-says-lack-of-invite-to-oireachtas-abortion-hearings-a-grave-injustice-743533-Jan2013/

            It’s bad enough they were rejected, never mind the fact that there are more pro-life groups included, and that’s before you take into account the groups representing the different religions.

            The medical professionals should be unbiased. Casey is an active pro-life campaigner and Binchy is well known for his pro-life views. I’m not aware of any pro-choice medical experts on the panel (I’m not saying there are none, I just am not aware if any of them have been actively pro-choice). Any who have been on so far, in favour of legislation, seem to be very balanced and professional and have stuck to talking about abortions when there is a risk to a woman’s life.

          4. Niamh

            Sorry, I should have said ‘medical and legal experts should be unbiased’ since Binchy is a Prof of Law.

          1. Grimes

            My mind is open, just going on past history, and tomorrow they’ll all be in the same room! *shudder

    3. KeithFahey’s Moustache

      Give me one reason why the should be included? Individuals who make a choice to terminate a pregnancy do so on their own moral code not that of others

      1. True Kilockian

        Because we need to hear what the foreign run cult that concealed pedophilia thinks on moral issues.
        (So we can do the opposite).

    4. VinLieger

      Moral leaders? Dont get me started on the hypocrsy that is the catholic church, the pope recently invited the prime minister of uganda to the vatican to bless her for her good work while she is pushing through a law in her country that will make it completely legal to murder people suspected of being homosexual,
      How can you claim to be a moral leader while blithely ignoring one of the 10 key laws of your faith “thou shalt not kill” by publicly blessing someone for their good deeds who is enabling and encouraging this very act just to satisfy your own twisted homphobic agenda?

      1. goodgrief

        It was the speaker of the Ugandan Parliament.
        She was not invited – she was attending an international human rights conference.
        Which no-one seemed to find objectionable.
        The law in question is completely objectionable, is not however as you characterize it and has been opposed by the local Catholic Church and by the Vatican.
        And she wasn’t blessed.

        1. ABM

          Don’t let facts get in the way of a good dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bean léi about some article he/she read in The Guardian. (which nobody reads anyway, gratia Dei).

        2. VinLieger

          Really? google “Rebecca Kagada pope” and pope see how many articles say she was blessed

          1. ABM

            She probably got a blessing when she went up for Holy Communion because she’s not in communion with the catholic church? That would be one explanation.

            I know many persons of homosexual inclination who do this every Sunday.

          2. Arbs

            ABM said “I know many persons of homosexual inclination who do this every Sunday”. In the way of your “bloodied underpants” comment to me, this is just too much. Irony much? Hypocrisy much? You’re comedy gold!

          3. goodgrief

            And if I google Prime Minster of Uganda will her name come up too? Because I read it on the internet…

        3. Blobster

          Woah there goodgrief. Didn’t you get the memo? The Catholic Church is bad and no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince BS readers that the church is out to kill homosexual people.

          But for those interested in facts, your post above is useful.

          In addition On 23 December 2009, the Ugandan Archbishop of Kampala Cyprian K. Lwanga issued a Christmas statement in which he publicly condemned the bill, saying:

          “The Catholic Church is clear in its teaching on homosexuality. Church teaching remains that homosexual acts are immoral and are violations of divine and natural law. [...] However, the Church equally teaches the Christian message of respect, compassion, and sensitivity. The Church has always asked its followers to hate the sin but to love the sinner. [...] The recently tabled Anti-Homosexuality Bill does not pass a test of a Christian caring approach to this issue. The targeting of the sinner, not the sin, is the core flaw of the proposed Bill. The introduction of the death penalty and imprisonment for homosexual acts targets people rather than seeking to counsel and to reach out in compassion to those who need conversion, repentance, support and hope.”

      1. Blobster

        Wrong. Yesterday was medical practioners (today is legal professionals). Your gags would be better if you got the factual part right.

    5. SheIsTheCatsMother

      don’t see what they have to do with it myself …
      Are any of them women? of reproductive age?
      Then of course they should participate.
      I don’t see any pagan priestesses invited to this religious debate …
      An interesting anecdote: St. Brighid of Kildare was renowned for her many miracles. A little known miracle was when “…Around 650 AD a monk named Cogitosus wrote a biography of St Brigit’s life. Within
      this biography, Cogitosus tells the story of a miracle brought forth by St Brigit. The
      story goes that a woman, who had taken a vow of chastity, fell to youthful desire and
      became pregnant. Cogitosus wrote:
      “Brigit, exercising with the most strength of her ineffable faith, blessed her,
      caused the fetus to disappear without coming to birth, and without pain. She
      faithfully returned the woman to health and to penance.” [www.arha.org.au/papersandarticles/catholicism%20and%20reproductive%20rights.pdf p.2]

  4. Jess

    The right to travel outside of Ireland to have an abortion and the right to information on procuring one abroad are specifically constitutionally protected rights afforded to no other crime in this country, much less one that carries a lifetime jail sentence if carried out here. Why is that?

    I posit that deep down, the people of Ireland realise that forcing a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy is more abhorrent than allowing a woman to have an abortion. Even if they won’t let her have one here yet, they recognise the fairness of allowing her to have one elsewhere.

    1. True Kilockian

      The pro life movement are traitors to Ireland. By allowing Britain to ‘solve this problem’ and preventing a rational approach to unwanted pregnancy in Ireland they are attacking Irish INDEPENDENCE itself.

      In this specific matter they oppose Irish Independence.
      This is treason.

      1. ABM

        That’s an interesting pro-choice argument you have there. I hadn’t heard that one before. Good man.

    2. Limey Tank

      Take solace in the fact that the HSE offer non-judgemental after care to women who have had abortions.

      1. rayray

        Yes, but did you see this factoid? “Of the 19 maternity hospitals in Ireland, only 3 have perinatal psychiatrists – and they’re all in Dublin.” So psychiatric aftercare for any issues surrounding pregnancy (not just abortion) is oretty much restricted to the capital.

        1. Stewart Curry

          factoid != little fact

          “A factoid is a questionable or spurious (unverified, false, or fabricated) statement presented as a fact, but with no veracity.”

          (just so you know)

      2. ABM

        “Take solace in the fact that the HSE offer non-judgemental after care to women who have had abortions.” Ever stopped and asked yourself why women need professional help after an abortion? Oh yes, that’s right. It’s all those nasty pro-lifers’ fault.

        1. Arbs

          Darling if you listened to all three psychiatrists yesterday, you would have found out that of course abortion is traumatic for some women but also there are an equal amount for whom it has not affected, that is they viewed it for whatever reason as the right decision at the right time. I also think you are, of all people, in no position to make statements on “non-judgemental advice”and could do, I would wager, with a little non-judgemental care yourself.

          1. ABM

            Yet again stigmatising people with mental health difficulties by using mental health as an issue to beat someone with. It’s because of people like you that each year, a large number of people feel they have nowhere to turn to and make the ultimate decision. Your commentary (this and previous) is frankly, detestable.

          2. Arbs

            Pointing out that you could do with a little help to sort yourself out is hardly mocking of people with mental health difficulties. Just like in the wake of your (deleted by moderator) comment to me about engaging in unprotected homosexual sex with my imagined boyfriend culminating in a “bloodied underpants” discovered by my mother, suggesting that this may reveal some personal issues on your part is hardly homophobic. One is entitled to judge you by your comments on here.

          3. Jess

            “It’s because of people like you that each year, a large number of people feel they have nowhere to turn to”…

            Are you talking into a mirror, ABM?

          4. Sido

            That’s because the UK is a civilised country that treats women as humans and equal to men.
            They also tend to leave government to politicians not the representatives of some weird geriatric egotist who lives in Rome.

        2. Jess

          Actually it’s because abortion is a medical procedure that can have complications and if aftercare is not available these complications could go unnoticed and untreated until they become a serious threat to the woman’s health.

          Also because haters like to try and shame women for having had abortions, and some can feel rather put-upon as a result.

          1. Ella

            +1

            Some months ago Youth Defense were using an interview the woman from the C Case had given to illustrate their spurious claims about the trauma and regret of abortion. They quoted her expressions of guilt and regret and her need to find a way to find peace with having had the abortion.

            In their transcript, Youth Defense notably excised a pertinent section of what she explicitly mentions having “never got over” the photographs and placards she saw outside the GPO. The interview in full is deeply sad and illustrates the complexities involved – from the rape to social exclusion to lack of communication and information to lack of aftercare. But when Youth Defense et al refer to it, they always suppress the references to their own psychologically brutal tactics.

            (This interview was alluded to briefly on Vincent Browne last night without proper context, in case anyone caught that.)

    3. The Drivel Machine

      The counselling, information and medical advice offered to Irish women considering terminating their pregnancy is a farce. The needless taboo nature and shame associated with abortion ensures any assistance is provided with a considerable amount of judgement.
      What kind of nation treats a potential 50% of their population like this?

  5. rayray

    Speaking tomorrow are:

    Irish Catholic Bishops Conference
    Church of Ireland
    Presbyterian Church of Ireland
    Methodist Church of Ireland
    Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland

    There’s also speakers from four pro-life groups after that.

    1. rayray

      Whoops that was to ABM’s comment above, but I see Jess dealt with his inability to Google things before decrying them anyhow.

    2. Jay

      And WTF do they have to do with any of this? I do not get this AT ALL. The medical professionals, thats great and needed, church representative? WTF, seriously? Asshat Kenny on the go again.

      1. Stewart Curry

        Isn’t it because religious organisations represent the views of their members, and the abortion debate seems to have a religious component (killing babies is a sin). Not saying I agree with this mind you. Then there’s the massive lobbying machine (sorry, charity) over in Iona HQ that feels it should have its voice heard.

        1. Fuzzy Dunlop

          Did the Iona Institute not have it’s voice heard with Patricia Casey speaking yesterday, or was she there purely as a medical professional ;)

      2. Niamh

        I heard a newsreader refer to them as ‘religious experts’, not saying they aren’t but it’s like having a doctor give his opinion on the structural failure of a building – he’s an expert, but only in his own field.

        The religious organisations have every right to advise Catholics on morality but they shouldn’t be advising the government. Given that 84% of Irish people claim to be Catholic, in theory, the bishops shouldn’t even feel the need to speak outside of the churches or Catholic media.

        I wouldn’t care if atheist, agnostic or secular groups weren’t represented. But (even though I’m not a member of Atheist Ireland and I don’t follow or necessarily agree with everything they say) I’m glad that atheists are at least represented if religious groups are.

  6. Josh

    Those bonds aren’t going to pay themselves back: this country needs each and every s̶l̶a̶v̶e̶ worker it can get its hands on.

  7. steve white

    so we never go even a attempt at answering the question did we, did i miss it among all the bickering?

Comments are closed.