“It Has All Been Yes Side Talking Points, Yes Side Sad Stories”

at | 108 Replies


From top: Pro-life campaigners Clare McCarthy, David Quinn, Maria Steen, Niamh Ui Bhriain and John McGuirk in the Davenport Hotel yesterday afternoon.

Further to Facebook banning foreign ads and Google – which owns YouTube – blocking all advertisements connected to the referendum…

Save the 8th spokesperson John McGuirk said: “There have been no items that I can recall on any broadcast channel about actually what’s in the legislation people are being asked to vote on about how it’s abortion up to six months in some circumstances. It has all been Yes side talking points, Yes side sad stories.”

Cora Sherlock of LoveBoth called the decision an “outrageous interference in the democratic process which should be immediately reversed.”

Ms Sherlock drew the distinction between the decision of Facebook – which committed to stopping foreign interference in the referendum – and Google’s action yesterday, which she claims “actually censors Irish citizens”.

John McGuirk: Media coverage of abortion referendum has all been ‘Yes side sad stories’ (Irish Examiner)

Meanwhile…

Last night.

Paraic O’Brien of Channel 4 News in Dublin delivers a comprehensive dispatch on the ads row.

Fight!

108 thoughts on ““It Has All Been Yes Side Talking Points, Yes Side Sad Stories”

  1. phil

    So the NO side are ‘friends’ with the EDL ….

    Whenever I’m unsure on how to vote on an issue, I look at both sides and think , who would I like to be associated with.

    Reply
  2. Paul

    We have been seeing the ‘No’ sides sad stories, they’re printed 10 feet tall and propped up outside maternity hospitals.

    Reply
  3. missred

    That was a great report from Paraic O’Brien – Channel 4 have excellent journalists. That little rip in the pink riled me up even more than the head of Family & Life did when not answering questions put to him

    Reply
    1. Daisy Chainsaw

      Getting a taste of his own medicine. It’s a pity O’Brien didn’t edit it the way EDL fanboy does.

      Reply
  4. TheRealJane

    They do love both, that’s the sense that you get from their tone in referring to real people in real situations. It’s the loving compassion that hits you. It’d be so easy for them to be dismissive and shrug it all off, but as always, they’re scrupulously careful to be kind and respectful.

    Amazing credit to them.

    Reply
  5. Yowzah

    Great news report.
    Glad to see Irish Gov on their game, and able to fight off foreign interference. Yer man off Twitter (Gav’s Blog?!?)) did much of the leg work, and it seems no Irish news gathering industry able to match Ch4 skills.

    Reply
    1. ahjayzis

      The Irish government haven’t done anything?

      We’re just lucky we’re Facebook and Googles high-end tax haven, or they wouldn’t give enough of a sh1t to sort it for us.

      Reply
      1. cupofteaanyone

        I think its more to do with the backlash FB got for allowing ads funded in Rubles relating to the elections over there.

        Reply
    2. phil

      You cant be pointing things like that out, and neither can the government , that would undo the new religion of balance….. for instance, if you found the NO side to pushing some lies, you couldn’t point that out unless you found the Yes side pushing lies ….

      Reply
    3. ivan

      Gavin Sheridan pointed out on Sunday (I think) that his own analysis of ‘stuff’ was that No appeared to be miles ahead in the digital platform stakes, as in they were running a fuppton more adverts etc. He asked whether the Yes side had a similar strategy ready to go, and that if not, they should, and that they should get on it pronto.

      From what I saw, he got savaged for not ‘doing his bit to help the yes side’ instead of carping from the sidelines, which I thought was harsh. It’s not like Bobby Sands saying that everybody has to do their part – actually no they don’t, and people can be permitted to make observations from the sidelines as well as from the trenches.

      In any event, he did mighty work highlighting the issue; I think they’ve stopped tearing strips off of him by now…

      Reply
      1. Nigel

        I think it was criticism and analysis offered in good faith but there’s been such an endless tedious stream of useless and/or bad-faith criticism that he got a bit of a knee-jerk reaction.

        Reply
  6. newsjustin

    McGuirk is correct. I can’t recall any broadcast channel actually going through the General Scheme of the Bill and saying what’s in it and what’s not. At least here on BS it has been discussed in the comments.

    Many TV and radio programmes, and much print media are interested in people’s stories ( both supporting and against repeal, and agnostic) and, as McGuirk says, the “process” stories re funding, tone, etc. They don’t seem able or willing to actually exam the Bill in detail and lay out what is or isn’t in it.

    Reply
      1. newsjustin

        I’m going sky-diving this afternoon. The tutor assures me the plane is working perfectly and has been recently serviced.

        He hasn’t mentioned the parachute yet. I guess we’ll talk about that later…in the plane…..or on the way down. I guess.

        Reply
        1. Rich Uncle Skeleton

          In this analogy, does sky diving as it exists and the situation with the parachute deny women from accessing essential healthcare in their own country?

          Reply
        2. IonaLotOfProblems

          a sky dive… what a fun way to travel to England/Wales to get health care. I like your style.

          Reply
          1. Janet, I ate my Avatar

            if you hit the ground hard enough you can skip the clinic
            and it would be God’s will

        3. scottser

          you’ll be strapped to the instructor so you won’t have a parachute of your own – it’s way to early to talk about a parachute of your own yet. i know it feels unnatural and wrong to want to jump out of the plane but just relax and go with it. – you’ll be amazed at what you see and feel on the way down.
          or
          you don’t need to be pro-abortion to be pro-choice. let go and do the right thing..

          Reply
    1. Listrade

      Ok, is McGuirk talking about the proposed legislation? Nope.

      Is he debating any of the issues covered by the proposals other than being disingenuous with what they say? No.

      Instead he puts up a poster last night containing a wholly fabricated statement about 97% of abortions being to healthy babies.

      He doesn’t want a debate on the legislation because that is where the debate will be lost for the No side because they will have to face up to to reality of the issues surrounding FFA, mother’s health and rape. They will have to state on camera that they want to see a mother denied cancer treatment, that they want her to go to full term with FFA that they want a rape victim to have the child of their rapist.

      A debate on the legislation is the last thing he wants because it’s the very thing that will bring in the “sad” stories he grossly dismissed.

      Reply
      1. newsjustin

        The No side have repeatedly asked for a debate (in particular with Minister Harris) to discuss his Bill.

        McGuirk, for all his bluster, has regularly quoted directly and shared screenshots from the Bill. He is, absolutely talking about the legislation.

        On the Late Late Show debate Caroline Simons read directly from the Bill. She had wanted to have Peter Boylan read it himself but Tubridy, quite reasonably, protected him from that.

        You are living in a fantasy if you think the anti-repeal side don’t want to debate the Bill. The most striking absence from this debate is the Minister for Health who has steadfastedly avoided defending the Bill in any debate.

        Reply
        1. Listrade

          McGuirk has regularly misrepresented aspects of the proposal. That’s not a debate.

          Stating it allows late term abortions without the context they are allowed (mother’s life), is not a debate. It is deliberately misleading and scaremongering.

          Statements on Down’s syndrome (not even on the proposal) are lies.

          Statements on 12 weeks without context are disingenuous.

          Failing to discuss the clear restrictions on abortion after 12 weeks are disingenuous.

          So I’m sorry, I don’t buy the “we’re the reasonable ones here” approach. They’ve taken the decisions of throwing enough shit at the blanket hoping that some will stick, and if most of that turns out to be lies or misleading statements, so be it.

          Reply
          1. newsjustin

            So you’re taking the “unless you spin and contextualise the actual facts as T4Y would like, they cease to be actual facts” approach.

            Perfect example is the abortion up to viability (just shy of 6 months) issue.

            Anti Repealer: “This General Scheme of the Bill allows for abortion up to viability- approx 23 weeks or 6 months.”

            Repealers: “No it doesn’t. This is an outright lie. It only allows abortion up to viability in the following cases: Serious threat to mental or physical health of the mother, in the case of fatal foetal abnormality.”

            Anti Repealer: “Yes. So it does allow for abortion up to viability?”

            Repealers: “…………………”

          2. Listrade

            No, I said it was misleading and disingenuous. As you have demonstrated.

            The intention isn’t to debate, because what would now happen is we would have a debate on FFA and mother’s health. But we don’t. That gets dismissed as “sad stories”.

            The context is very important. A debate on the conditions for when abortion is permitted is important. However, making the statement as you did is disingenuous and misleading because it implies no conditions on abortion at 6 months. And that’s what McGuirk wants, he wants just enough people to take away his deliberately misleading statements to be fearful of what isn’t true.

            In your example, why don’t the No side mention the conditions upfront? Because they want to mislead. Why when the context is mentioned doesn’t the No person address those two very specific and very limited circumstances? Because they want to mislead.

            Not debate. Not discuss. Scare enough people without giving any context and then callously dismiss the genuine context and trauma of people as “sad stories”.

          3. ReproBertie (SCU)

            That’s pretty disingenuous newsjustin. In your little imaginary conversation there the anti-repealer is clearly presenting the clause without context to suggest that Repeal means abortions on demand up to 6 months. Now why would they misrepresent the situation like that? Even John McGuirk said he’s fully behind abortions right up to birth if the life of the mother is in danger.

          4. Cian

            if you ever watched a courtroom drama you know they swear to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”.

            “This General Scheme of the Bill allows for abortion up to viability- approx 23 weeks or 6 months.” is the truth, but not the whole truth.

            If I were to say that “the current, 2013, legislation allows for the lawful termination of a pregnancy (i.e. an unborn human life is ended) with no time restrictions.” – which is true; would you want to add the context where it is valid (i.e. the whole truth)?

        2. Nigel

          The best tactical stroke by the Yes side was to eschew time and energy wasting confrontational debates with these bad-faith gish-galloping liars, instead focusing on a grass-roots doorstep and street-cornet campaign of talking and explaining to the confused and undecided, far more effective as shown by the citizen”s assembly. Way less screaming and shouting and accusation and counter-accusation and thanks to things like Repeal Shield way less online flaming. If the No side don’t like the they can console themselves by bathing in their endless steams of foreign cash being used to buy online ads full of lies and inaccuracies

          Reply
          1. Sentient Won

            “lies and inaccuracies”

            The only way the Yes side can make a valid argument is to deny the other side the right and opportunity to make the counter argument.

            Between “moderation”, ad hominens and gang stalking it happens here on a daily basis.

          2. ReproBertie (SCU)

            “ABORTION IS MURDER!” is not a counter point. Nor is “TRIGGERED” nor do references to the “abortion industrial complex” qualify.

            Try making an actual counter point to something instead of spitting the dummy. You might be surprised.

          3. Nigel

            The poor No side has to put up with the undemocratic injustice of people disagreeing with them and have been reduced to making their arguments in the ghettos of the national airwaves and the national broadcaster and national and local newspapers and pulpits up and down the country and posters and billboards and leaflets and canvassing on streets and doorsteps. They’ve been silenced I tell you!

  7. rotide

    Great shot of an auld lad suckin on a fag in the polling station from the 83 referendum in that. good times.

    Reply
    1. Frill the 8th

      that @ReelingInThe8th twitter account has dug out some great classics

      highly recommended
      although I think david paul etc might want to say away from the sex ed for girls link

      Reply
  8. Daisy Chainsaw

    The tantrum throwing has been magnificent to watch! McGuirk lost it like a 5 year old denied access to Peppa Pig on the radio yesterday. The google ban has hit them hard and they’re panicking. All that money that had to be spent and accounted for on dubious ads and paid for video trailers on YouTube (a Google Company!) and now they can’t do anything with it? This was a bolt from the blue for them.

    Poor things, having their choices limited like that.

    Reply
    1. Rob

      The most upsetting thing about this is that I might have another 2 years of Peppa related tantrums. I was sure our three y/o would have moved onto some other form of tantrum by then.

      Reply
    2. Frill the 8th

      But heres the ting tho

      McGuirk was letting on he and his crowd had nothing to do with those fake ads etc anyway

      saying they were the activities of unconnected Anti-Abortion activists

      and he was never done disassociating and the like from them

      So why should he be getting his panties in a knot

      unless………….
      he was never lying was he?

      Reply
      1. newsjustin

        You don’t understand the respective Facebook and Google decisions Frilly.

        Facebook banned foreign ads.
        Google just banned everything, good, bad, foreign and Irish funded.

        There’s a reason the pro life groups are upset by one and not the other.

        Reply
        1. Daisy Chainsaw

          I’ll be there is! Poor things, having choices they see as a basic right taken away from them and controlled by others.

          (Loads up Alanis video on YouTube without a LoveBoats intro)

          Reply
        2. Listrade

          Why are they upset? They have money for posters, they get plenty of press coverage, so why are they so upset that an unregulated form of targeted advertising has been removed by the host of the adverts?

          McGuirk claimed the foreign and deceptive ads were nothing to do with him, he seems awfully upset that this Avenue has been closed if he wasn’t involved in any of the deception.

          Reply
          1. newsjustin

            Listrade. You seem to be in the same boat as Frilly in misunderstanding.

            McGuirk welcomed Facebook’s decision to ban foreign ads.

            He hasn’t welcomed Google’s blanket ban on all adverts because his legitimate, SIPO complient, Irish campaign can no longer use that platform as they planned.

            There’s nothing remarkable or unreasonable about this reaction.

          2. Listrade

            The only thing I misunderstand is why he’s so upset. Upset enough to stand there with a PowerPoint glowing in the background claiming the referendum is rigged.

            There are plenty of legitimate regulated means to campaign. The Yes side has the exact same open to it, there isn’t any disadvantage.

            So why claim it is rigged?

            It’s an understandable decision by google. They have been getting a lot of complaints as adverts have appeared on YouTube and on websites. A lot of noise from the their customers in the last few weeks. Google can’t control the content, so they decide it is easier for all to stop ads.

            How is it rigged if it applies to all?

          3. Daisy Chainsaw

            None of the legitimate, SIPO compliant, Irish campaign groups can use a private company’s platform anymore.

            There are other media hosting companies who, I’m sure, would be only thrilled with the business while antichoice add Google to their list of boycotts.

        3. italia'90

          ….but you’re fine with the ban on freedom of choice for the minority who require an abortion.
          Come down off the cross etc. etc.

          Reply
  9. Ron Dolan

    I keep telling No voters that it doesn’t really matter about this result as we won’t be waiting several decades for another one. Drives them nuts. :)

    Sorry My McGuirk and all the rest, we are only voting on the constitutional amendment. Like all your other arguments, its spurious and off topic.

    Keep up.

    Reply
    1. newsjustin

      The promised abortion legislation, contingent on the result of this referendum, is not the topic of this abortion referendum.

      Ah lads, ye’re gas. Fair play for the lols.

      Reply
      1. Ron Dolan

        Glad you get a laugh out of it, pretty serious business, but I guess you are a bit confused so most likely nervous laughter?

        Can you tell us exactly what it is we are voting on then? Free cheese? The right to raise chicens as rabbits? Reducing the height of pylons? Or perhaps removing an article from the constitution.

        Answers on the back of a mocked up anti choice poster of Simon Harris please.

        Reply
        1. newsjustin

          As you know, we’re voting to amend the constitution to remove the acknowledgement of the right to life of the unborn. Government has clearly indicated the General Scheme of the Bill that they will advance upon a Yes side win. One is directly contingent on the other. If you vote Yes, you are knowingly agreeing with the Government’s General Scheme of the Bill.

          Reply
          1. Ron Dolan

            As it says:

            On Friday 25th May 2018, you will be asked to
            vote on a proposal to change the Constitution
            of Ireland. The proposed change to the
            Constitution concerns the regulation of
            termination of pregnancy.
            Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, as
            interpreted by the Supreme Court, means that
            it is lawful for a pregnancy to be terminated
            only where the pregnancy poses a real and
            substantial risk to the life of the mother. This
            includes a risk of suicide.

            The proposal on 25th May is to delete Article
            40.3.3 of the Constitution and to insert in its
            place that
            “Provision may be made by law
            for the regulation of termination
            of pregnancy.”

            Laws are made by the Oireachtas.
            *You are
            not being asked in this referendum to vote on
            any particular law relating to the termination
            of pregnancy.*

            If you feel the Oireachtas is wrong to implement these laws, I am sure a GE will be along soon enough and you can then vote for Renua (titter) or the Fascist party.

          2. newsjustin

            Did you vote Yes in the SSM referendum not anticipating any legislation to follow it?

          3. Cian

            #34: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”

            #36: “Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy”

            seems similar to me…

      2. ReproBertie (SCU)

        When we discuss the bill here you and david are quick to point out that it can change when it goes through the Dáil. How can you expect people to engage in a serious discussion about it when every point made for or against is immediately dismissed as a mere possibility?

        Reply
        1. newsjustin

          The General Scheme of the Bill tells you directly what Government wants to enact. And they are seeking a mandate to enact it (which is why they’ve, quite reasonably, published the General Scheme before the vote). A Yes vote gives them a mandate to do that.

          You are right though. A Yes vote also allows any parliament at any time to change abortion law.

          It’s funny to watch some politicians, who desperately wanted a clause in the Constitution to ensure there is never a sell-off of Irish Water and our water resources, now tell us to just trust them and future politicians to always do the right thing regarding abortion legislation.

          Reply
          1. Ron Dolan

            I don’t think [REDACTED] has much interest in investing (at cut price rates I might add) in termination clinics somehow.

            Unless those pesky planned parenthood yanks have done a REITS like deal to rent out unused beds in the facilities by the hour to Brazilian migrants?

            Anyway, seeing as we are way off topic now, has anyone wondered why Mickey Mouse is no longer starring in Disney animations? Is it agism? He’s a grand old age now, but has Donald finally succumbed to old age himself?

            Sad really.

          2. newsjustin

            Nice one Ron. As you know, but now wish to avoid, the subject is what happens after a Yes vote and trusting the politicians with abortion law.

          3. ReproBertie (SCU)

            Ivana Bacik was quite open, before the referendum was announced, that the victory was Repeal since the legislation that follows, should it not go far enough, would be much easier to amend.

            That politician’s freedom works both ways. There is nothing at all stopping Pro-Life campaigners and TDs working to restrict access in the future.

            So what issues do you have with the heads of the bill as they stand? What’s the discussion you want to have?

        2. Listrade

          +1 and more.

          Details of the bill are discussed and then the conversation is shifted to what ifs about future changes rather than any specific discussion on the merits of the bill.

          Reply
      3. Daisy Chainsaw

        Did you vote yes in the Presidential Age referendum not anticipating any legislation to follow it?

        Reply
    2. Bob

      Ron Dolan: I keep telling No voters that it doesn’t really matter about this result as we won’t be waiting several decades for another one.

      Tell a yes voter you are voting no this time because sure you know they’ll just run the referendum again and you can expect a similar reaction.

      Trolling be trolling.

      Reply
  10. Ron Dolan

    @newsjustin – Here’s the thing Justin, we kind of have to ‘trust’ the politicians insofar as that is possible. But until then (a possible Yes vote), the only issue at hand is the one to repeal.

    No point worrying about the dessert when you haven’t even picked your starter.

    Reply
      1. Ron Dolan

        You want to see what I do with them on a BBQ! (Hint, there is BBQ sauce involved, makes them ‘Lush’ ;) )

        Reply
  11. Nigel

    Heh.

    Yes Side Story.

    Dear kindly John McGuirke
    Ya gotta understand
    It’s just our right to choicke
    Sends us off to Eng-er-land
    Mothers they get sickly
    Sometimes they’re just broke
    Golly! Moses! Health care ain’t a joke!

    Reply
  12. Frill the 8th

    Ah lads
    I need a holiday

    from all of ye

    feckin hell

    Let me spell it out
    In such simple terms that even a yank can understand

    The Referendum is YES to remove the 8th amendment to the Constitution of Ireland or Bunreacht na hÉireann, if you’re one ah’ them MickMacMahunas
    or
    NO keep it where it is

    its that simple, so no need for dramatics, tantrums, hissyfits or widescreen imax graphics and sci-fi fictional tales of utter rubbish

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html
    Here’s a link to a copy of the document;
    anti- abortion fanatics take note; you are at risk of being underwhelmed and left short, its a bitta’ve passion killer – ye’re favourite word is not mentioned

    Regarding the Legislation the No-siders are so horny about
    It has not even been debated, so ye don’t know what the document will even look like before being voted on in the House, and even then – if Miggledy will sign it
    what’s even more pathetic, ye insist on talking about a bill that ye still know even know who will support yay or nay it

    so STFU talking about stuff ye have no accurate or current details about
    I won’t mention the *F word
    ’cause I know ye’ve had a stressful 24 hours

    And ye would all do well to remember that Laws can be appealed and challenged and even tested in the Courts
    which is where all this shy te should be anyway
    so would ye ever get off my t1ts
    tis that time of the month
    and they’re sore
    and Ann Summers bras aren’t what they used ta’be

    *Facts

    Reply
    1. newsjustin

      Don’t look at the General Scheme of the Bill for abortion prepared by the Minister for Health and to be advanced upon a Yes vote. I repeat, do not look at the legislation the Government are proposing. It has nothing to do with the abortion referendum and, maybe, nothing to do with abortion. Come to think of it – does the General Scheme even exist?? Was it just a dream? Sure Vote Yes anyway and we can find out together.

      Reply
      1. Cian

        yeah, but when the “Yes” side try to engage about the proposed legislation, the “No” side often retort with “But it’s just legislation and it can be changed in the future to [.. various worst-case scenarios].

        Reply
      2. Ron Dolan

        ” Come to think of it – does the General Scheme even exist??”
        Yes.

        ”Was it just a dream? ”
        Yes.

        ”Sure Vote Yes anyway and we can find out together.”
        Yes.

        I’m available for barmitzvahs and weddings.

        Reply
      3. Frill the 8th

        @Justine

        we can find it all out together through the Courts
        because that where Laws should be tested on whether they are fit for purpose

        not on massive posters outside maternity hospitals

        or by Iona and the gang

        Reply
  13. newsjustin

    The Yes side are asking voters to close their eyes, ignore the General Scheme of the Bill…pretend it doesn’t exist in fact…and vote to remove all protection of the unborn from the constitution.
    You can imagine why many voters can’t quite get on board with such ridiculous pig-in-a-pokery.

    Reply
    1. ReproBertie (SCU)

      “The Yes side are asking voters to close their eyes, ignore the General Scheme of the Bill…pretend it doesn’t exist in fact…and vote to remove all protection of the unborn from the constitution.”
      Where have they asked them to do that?

      Reply
      1. newsjustin

        On this thread. (Sorry, I’m suggesting people in favour of Repeal here are part of the Yes side). This referendum is just about the wording in the Constitution apparently, forget the legislation.

        And on the final point, no one now doubts, following the Supreme Court ruling, that the proposed amendment to the constitution will remove any acknowledgement of the right to life of the unborn in the Constitution.

        Reply
        1. Daisy Chainsaw

          Where in Malta’s constitution is the right to life of the unborn enshrined? Or Chile, or any of the other countries that have banned abortion?

          Reply
        2. ReproBertie (SCU)

          So when you say “The Yes side” you mean some, but not all, of the pro Repeal posters on this particular thread. To put it another way, your claim only means anything if you put it in context. Now where have we seen that sort of behaviour from the Retain side before?

          Reply
    2. Cian

      The Yes side are asking voters to remove a clause from the constitution that was added 35 years ago.

      Reply
    3. Cian

      Wait a minute. I’m the Yes side.
      I have repeatedly linked to the proposed legislation, and talked through it.
      And lots of others on broadsheet have too.

      Reply
      1. Listrade

        You should know by now that if you repeat a statement enough times will continually refusing or avoiding the exact debate you’re claiming isn’t offered, no matter how many times someone tries to engage in that debate with you, it eventually becomes a truth.

        The No side just wants the appearance of trying to engaging in a debate. They do not want the debate.

        Reply
      2. newsjustin

        Well done Cian. So you agree that we should take the General Scheme of the Bill into account when we are voting? That it matters? That it is what Government want to enact if there is a Yes vote?

        Reply
        1. Daisy Chainsaw

          Did you take the General Scheme of the Bill into account when you voted on the 35th amendment?

          Reply
          1. newsjustin

            I honestly can’t remember if one was released before that vote Daisy. And as you know, the impact of that amendment, which was defeated anyway, was very discrete – age of a presidential candidate – nothing more.

            This referendum explicitly refers to the Oireachtas legislating for something. Something very, very complex. So it’s not unreasonable for voters to be curious about what the result of their Yes vote would be.

          2. Daisy Chainsaw

            What was the general scheme of the bill for the 8th amendment itself?

            Your pearl clutching over something that hasn’t or may not even happen is admirable, but really, it’s a distraction from the substantive issue.

          3. newsjustin

            “All this talk of abortion is really distracting from the abortion referendum.”

          4. newsjustin

            It’s not mentioned because the positive flip-side is mentioned – right to life.

            What point are you trying to make? Are ye trying to say that this referendum is not about abortion?

        2. Cian

          We are voting on the wording of the 36th. That is what matters. Primary legislation can be changed at any stage in the future (either making it more or less liberal).

          The government has published their proposed legislation. People can/will take then into account – with the proviso that it is only proposed legislation and will probably change before being signed off (assuming the 8th is repealed).

          I would like to see a fair and balanced debate on the proposed legislation – with a commentary of why the various heads are there and what they mean (from both pro and anti sides).

          I was disappointed when I got the referendum commission booklet – it didn’t mention the proposed legislation. it was bland and uninformative.

          So to answer your question: yes I think that the proposed legislation should be taken into account when people vote – albeit a relatively small influence.

          Reply
          1. newsjustin

            Thanks Cian. I think, given we live in the real world and this has very practical consequences, the proposed legislation for abortion is very important to the debate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *