A Fine Republic

at

90422955

anne-marie-291x300

From top: Justice minister Frances Fitzgerald (left) and Attorney General Maire Whelan; Anne Marie McNally

On this extremely limited abortion bill they will hide behind excuses such as the can-kicking citizen’s convention or the cowardly and disingenuous assertion that they are following the Attorney General’s advice.

Anne Marie McNally writesL

Tomorrow, the Dáil will vote on a Bill tabled by Mick Wallace – a Bill aimed at providing for abortions to those women and their families who tragically find themselves dealing with a pregnancy diagnosis of Fatal Foetal Abnormality.

It is an exceptionally limited piece of legislation – it only addresses the abortion question within strict parameters of Fatal Foetal Abnormality.

It makes no reference to abortion in the cases of rape or incest.

It makes no reference to abortion provision for those who simply feel they cannot progress with a pregnancy for myriad reasons be they relationship issues, economic reasons, mental health reasons or any other reason a woman may feel that this pregnancy is just not right for her; in her body.

Her choice about her body in her life – this Bill does not make any provision for that.

It is extremely limited you see.

In fact it is actually only an Amendment Bill in that it is seeking to amend the already exceptionally limited Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill (you remember – the one which requires a woman to be judged by a team of medical professionals as suicidal before she will be granted autonomy over her own body).

So this limited Bill is attempting to amend an already limited Bill. Yet it is likely to be rejected when it comes to voting on it tomorrow afternoon.

The limits of my patience on this issue have become far more limited than either of these two Bills.

Did Mick Wallace set out to deliberately give us a piece of legislation that was so limited it would ignore the issue of a woman’s right to choose? No, he didn’t.

He looked at the options available and he tried to relieve at least some of the most horrendous elements of the current ‘head in the sand’ Irish approach to abortion.

The approach that makes you sit in a room and listen while a father tells the story of how a DHL courier delivered ashes to him from Liverpool Maternity Hospital after he and his wife were forced to travel there following a fatal foetal diagnosis.

Or the woman who haemorrhaged on the Ryanair flight home following a procedure she’d had because of a fatal foetal diagnosis.

Mick Wallace’s Bill is an olive branch into the abyss of the raging abortion debate to try and insert some basic humanity. Yet it will most likely fail.

And why will it fail?

It will fail because too many politicians across the divide will make grandiose speeches, and in some cases personal, emotional and passionate speeches but when it comes down to pressing that vote button, they will vote it down.

They will hide behind excuses such as the can-kicking citizen’s convention, or the cowardly and disingenuous assertion that they are following the AG’s advice.

Shamefully, some of them will talk about flood gates and the worst among them will say there is no such thing as fatal foetal abnormality.

As they procrastinate and make their excuses, women and their families will board planes and boats (the lucky ones who can afford to) and they’ll make the heart-breaking journey to the UK or Europe to be shown compassion and to obtain the medical treatment they both want and need.

It is not just scandalous it is also a direct contravention of Human Rights legislation but far be it for that to have any bearing on good auld Catholic Ireland.

We’ll ship them off and pretend we don’t see them as our Oireachtas sits down to vote on Thursday and when the majority have voted against human rights, compassion, medical choice and bodily autonomy, they’ll saunter out of the chamber into the canteen, onto the plinth or off home for the weekend, content with a good weeks work done and never casting a second thought to the impact their vote has had.

While the no voters go merrily about their day, Irish women will have emerged from their procedures in foreign hospitals facing an arduous and heart-breaking journey home to a country that has no respect for them.

A fine Republic indeed.

Anne Marie McNally is a founding member of the Social Democrats. Follow Anne Marie on Twitter: @amomcnally

Rollingnews

Sponsored Link

31 thoughts on “A Fine Republic

  1. manolo

    I hope that by the time my 8 y.o. daughter grows up she will be more than a legal container.

    1. nellyb

      Don’t worry, the gen before her (in colleges or working), won’t tolerate this faux humanists.
      Neither they’ll shove the bodies of born and died babies into septic tank.
      They are educated, humane and have self-respect. You can thank yourself for it. Deserved.

  2. Wayne.F

    Just the small issue of article 40.3.3

    “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

    And the clarification given in Roche vRoche 2010 in relation to the words “unborn” in the text.

    IF M.Wallaces bill passed, every termination would be dragged before the courts bye the IONA and Cora Sherlock & eunuch burke to name but a few.

    We all know the only way to deal with this properly and safely and constitutionally, is to remove the 8th amendment and put in place sensible legislation in relation to medical intervention during pregnancy.

    Dear Daíl politicians, stop playing politics with this and get on with doing it right

  3. mildred st. meadowlark

    I find it maddening that they are yet again (most likely) voting down a bill which would help so many in an untenable position. The bill only deals with FFA. Not rape, incest, not life-limiting conditions. Just cases where a child’s chance of life outside its mother is non-existent. How utterly heartless of them.

    They should vote it in. Anything is better than their useless dithering. They do as much damage with their inaction, as they would do if they charged in changed the constitution completely.

    1. Wayne.F

      So they vote it in, the president refers it to the courts, to ensure it is constitutional, the Supreme Court takes 3-6 months to issue a judgment. Meanwhile the constitutional convention is out on hold, and the repeal of the 8th is delayed.

      Hardly ideal circumstances now is it

      1. mildred st. meadowlark

        And circumstances are ideal now, yes?

        While the government are hemming and hawing over this issue, nothing is being done. Once the ball begins to move progress will come. Abortion in this country will come incrementally, because of the nature of what it is. So giving the option to some of these women has to be better than what they have now, which is no choice at all.

        1. Wayne.F

          I think you are missing the point, based on the Irish courts Roche v Roche and the definition of both unborn and understanding of life in 40.3.3 this bill will ultimately just delay, the constitutional referendum required for Irish women,to access medical treatment in Ireland.

          What M.Wallace should do is push for a vote with a defined start up date for the convention and a referendum. Instead he is playing politics with an incredibly delicate and important issue for Irish women.
          The only way to guarantee, non legally challenged access to medical terminations in Ireland is for the 8th amendment to be removed.

          No amount of legislation no matter how it is worded will be deemed constitutional in light of the wording of 40.3.3.

          1. mildred st. meadowlark

            You may very well be right. I am speaking from personal experience, a painful decision, and I imagine it is very much affecting my judgement on this. I find it hard to see the wood from the trees and a lot of my sentiment comes from frustration and anger at the impotence of our governments. There have been countless incidents over the years which have demonstrated the need for abortion in this country and they have wilfully ignored this and I will never stop feeling that I was failed by a succession of governments because of a lack of will and leadership on their part. There is a need for it in this country and they are ignoring that in favour of political agenda.

          2. Sheik Yahbouti

            These Governments are not impotent. They can introduce, and pass, legislation detrimental to the public in very short order when it suits Two very important Referenda could be held on the same day this year, should the Government so choose. Instead they flagrantly and wilfully ignore the wishes of the people they pretend to serve. Disgusting.

      2. The Real Jane

        Well at least the courts would have to discuss it. That inaction would be slightly more productive than the inertia we have now – and probably will have for the next two years at least. This convention of Ionas is not going to resolve anything and I do not think we should be waiting on their musings about how valuable the bodily integrity of women is to do anything at all.

        At this point, the politicians syllogism in yes minister looks like useful progress. Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do this. To not do it is to continue doing nothing and that is worse. Even the most woman unfriendly supreme court interpretation might at least force people to think about what”s happening and what the 8th Amendment means in terms of how this society views women.

          1. Wayne.F

            The convention of Ionas???? Similar system to the last one which seen LGBT marriage out to the people, not something the Ionas are a fan off.

            Mildred, I understand your frustration and pain, I know all to well how it feels as my wife has had to experience our backward medical system, and I had to experience trying to support her through it.

            As long as 40.3.3 is in the constitution, there is no wiggle room or legislation that will relieve the suffering around this issue.

            It’s time to grasp the nettle and get this done properly. That is what our TD’s should be doing

          2. The Real Jane

            *The convention of Ionas???? Similar system to the last one which seen LGBT marriage out to the people, not something the Ionas are a fan off.*

            Well listen, I hope you’re right and I’m wrong. But my perception is that Enda Kenny has a very particular viewpoint on this issue, far more so than he did with gay marriage and we will not see any improvement or welcome recommendations from this convention. If it isn’t stuffed with the cream of the iona institute and their friends with a token mildly pro choice person, I’ll be very surprised. Certainly I don’t expect to be represented.

      3. read twice

        @ Wayne. Why would the Constitutional Convention or People’s Assembly have to be put on hold for the Supreme Court to decide on this one bill?

        Worst case, their honours deliberating on the matter might end up being an academic exercise if we repeal the 8th the day after they decide on this bill. But I see no reason why the two processes cannot run in parallel. Given what’s at stake, I’d be happy if there were ten processes to improve the situation we could move forward with at the same time.

        But if I’m missing something, I’d welcome an explanation.

        1. Wayne.F

          You are missing something,the same reason, government committees can not comment when court proceedings are ongoing, t the convention has two purposes, to decide if a referendum to remove the article 40.3.3 is required, we are pretty sure that is a given and a vote will be held on that issue.

          If this bill is in the courts, ultimately, the definitions applied by the courts, and the judgment could be used by those as screen too hide behind and delay repealing the 8th. Sticking a hedge in the fence if you will, like we have seen so many times with this issue. It is also taking up judicial time and resources that could be applied to other issues before the Supreme court. Not to mention the time it is taking up in the Dail that could be dedicated to other issues that require Oireachtas attention.

          Its second role is to discuss what replaces it or what legislation is required in lew of this article being removed. This is probably the most important role, uncertainty about what would follow the removal of 40.3.3 from the constitution, may lead to a higher number of people voting to retain it. A clear and concise legislative framework could encourage, undecided voters or those with reservation about abortions to vote for a defined legislative option. Such as Rape, incest, fatal foetal abnormality.

          The blunt reality is the 8th needs to be repealed article 40.3.3 needs to be removed from the constitution and a framework put in place to allow, terminations in line with best international medical practice. Anything else is a pointless fudge.

  4. DubLoony

    The Attorney General’s advice is most likely that if passed, will be challenged and deemed unconstitutional becase of the 8th.
    “The right to life” does not stipulate the length of life, so it won’t be passed.

    Its the 8th that needs to go. Nothign else can get through without it.

    1. Wayne.F

      Any feotus capable of being born, is also protected whether they will survive or not. Article 40.3.3 talks about the right of the unborn, which makes the whole sorry mess complicated beyond the ability to legislate around it

      1. The Real Jane

        To gross you all out, I miscarried once at ten weeks. I suppose, since there was an output, one might, in the broadest terms, describe it as born. It emerged from the same orifice in a similar manner to my competed pregnancy with a living, healthy child. But other than the method used to expel them from my womb, having seen both issue, I would not say that there is any real similarity.

        Which is why the 8th must go. To say that my value is equal to a ten week old foetus is grossly insulting. To show, by action and word order that my value is actually less is to despise women.

        1. Wayne.F

          Jane, sadly that is what the wording of 40.3.3 has been interpreted as by the Irish courts in Roche v Roche! It’s a nightmare the wording, with the inclusion of life and unborn is a disaster. Once an egg is fertilised it is capable of being born and therefore protected!

          1. The Real Jane

            Yep, it’s a complete shambles. I don’t think that it’s a completely unforeseen side effect either. Women are just collateral.

    2. newsjustin

      The talk you’re hearing now from some quarters is almost identical to the talk before the SSM referendum.

      Some people think that the Oireachtas should just legislate for abortion (and SSM at the time) and leave it all fall where it may in the courts.

      Those people are wrong.

  5. newsjustin

    It is an extremely limited bill. It’s main limitation being that it is entirely unconstitutional and unworkable.

    But sure, give it a lash.

  6. read twice

    @ Wayne.F, newsjustin and DubLoony

    Have you read this:
    https://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/07/04/unconstitutional-deference/

    1. In P (P) v Health Service Executive [2014], it seems that article 40.3.3 does not protect the life of the foetus “where there was no reasonable prospect that it would be born alive”.

    2. The Constitution provides for a separation of powers and gives the Supreme Court the power to determine the constitutionality/unconstitutionality of a Bill. In letting the AG decide on the constitutionality of this Bill, the Government is acting unconstitutionally.

    I know Legal Coffee Drinker drinks coffee but I’m sure the Attorney General does too. They both have opinions and neither sit on the Supreme Court (as far as we know….).

    1. Wayne.F

      Have you read this? P (P) V HSE was heard in the High Court not the Supreme court. But from the same article you have quoted in the Comments section the issue has been raised. Ultimately as long as 40.3.3 exists, every termination can and will be challenged in the courts.

      The Supreme court has already commented on it, it protects the life of the foetus as being it can be born
      Returning to the Bill before us, the Supreme Court reviewed the meaning of the term “unborn” in Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution in Roche v Roche case in 2010. On that occasion, Judge Denham, the now Chief Justice, stated, with regard to the wording of the Eighth Amendment, that:
      “…both language versions refer to birth or being born. Thus the fact of being born or birth is a factor in both versions. The beginning of “life” is not the protected term, it is the unborn, the life capable of being born, which is protected. The capacity to be born, or birth, defines the right protected.”

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie