Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
PROMISSORY NOTES ARE high on the news agenda at the moment with the government seeking a deal to avoid paying the €3.06 billion due on 31 March, while a court last week ruled against a businessman who challenged their legality.
The government is staking much of its credibility on securing a deal to avoid paying out €3.06 billion of the €30.06 billion promissory notes issued in respect of primarily Anglo Irish Bank three years ago. But significant doubts remain about the likelihood of securing an agreement with the European Central Bank.
As well as that last week the High Court said that businessman David Hall’s challenge to the ‘prom’ notes’ legality was not valid as he was not a TD. He may yet appeal to the Supreme Court and a number of TDs could take their own case.
But as it stands, on 31 March Ireland will give €3.06 billion to the Central Bank and this money will be destroyed.
How and why has it come to this?
Last week we asked for your questions and we had a few of our own that we wanted answered, so we asked the experts including the Department of Finance, the independent TD Stephen Donnelly, and the financial blogger Namawinelake. Here’s what we found out.
What is a promissory note?
A promissory note is an IOU. Some of you may be used to writing your friends or family IOUs for say a tenner or similar amounts, but governments and banks deal in much bigger amounts with slightly more complex arrangements.
However the fundamentals are similar. Usually promissory notes will carry conditions such as agreeing to pay back a specific sum at a fixed date in the future with interest and crucially, distinguishing them from actual IOUs, they contain a specific promise to pay the money.
Here’s an old promissory note made out to the Imperial Bank of India in 1926:
Pic: Wikimedia Commons
Why was a promissory note issued for Anglo?
In 2010 the banks that were then Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide (now Irish Bank Resolution Corporation or IBRC) required around €30.06 billion in additional cash from the State because of their perilous state in the aftermath of the collapse of the property market.
Ireland had already exhausted all other avenues of funding: “We had already raided the pension fund and borrowings on the sovereign bond markets – which we were priced out of – in 2010,” Namawinelake explains so the option considered to be the best in the circumstances was to issue a promissory note.
How was this done?
Finance minister Brian Lenihan wrote a promissory note to the IBRC – basically saying “We owe you €31 billion” – which the bank used as collateral to borrow from the Cental Bank of Ireland’s emergency liquidity assistance (ELA) fund. Under the agreement, the State agreed to pay €3.06 billion every year to the IBRC until 2023 and smaller payments after that to satisfy the principal and the interest.
Instalments were scheduled for repayment annually from March 2011 to March 2031 with the interest on the principal varying from year-to-year, according to the Department of Finance. A comparatively smaller amount of around €250 million in promissory notes were issued in respect of Educational Building Society (EBS).
The repayment works like this: The government pays the money to IBRC, which gives it to the Central Bank of Ireland, which then destroys this money. This is done electronically in case you were thinking they were burning a huge wad of €100 notes on Dame Street.
Why is the money destroyed?
When Brian Lenihan drew up the promissory notes he effectively created the cash which the Central Bank gave to IBRC (Remember the State didn’t have the money to pay the Anglo/Irish Nationwide debt). IBRC uses this money to pay off bondholders (yep those guys) and plug the gaps created by the massive losses it has taken on property loans gone sour.
Former Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan at a summit of EU finance ministers on the dayIreland officially entered a bailout programme. Pic: AP Photo/Yves Logghe.
But creating cash or monetary financing is a no-no as far as the European Central Bank (ECB) is concerned. Its founding principles – the Maastricht Treaty – dictate that EU member states cannot finance their public deficits by printing money. The ELA – which is ironically the cheapest yet apparently the most troublesome part of Ireland’s debt – is seen as a temporary measure by the ECB and the financial markets.
It was created for Ireland at a time when we didn’t have the eurozone’s permanent bailout fund (the European Stability Mechanism). So in the ECB’s eyes if the Central Bank was to keep hold of the money instead of destroying it it would equate to it having printed money, breaking the rules which govern the EU. This why getting a deal that avoids having to pay €3.06 billion ever year is proving so difficult.
Did we have to do this?
Given that the government didn’t have the money to lend the banks the complete collapse of Anglo in particular – having been one of the biggest lenders in the State – would have had a contagious effect on other troubled banks throughout Europe potentially leading to their collapse and a full-blown banking crisis across Europe.
As Stephen Donnelly, who has been vehemently opposed to the promissory notes, points out: “[It] would certainly have run a foul of Europe’s two directives: That no European bank would fail and that the potential losses and lost profits of senior investors would be paid in full by the public.”
So all this talk of ‘a deal’ on the notes, what’s that about?
The government has been telling us for some months now that it is in ‘long, complex, detailed, technical’ discussions with the ECB to work out an alternative to paying back the promissory notes as the current arrangement is too burdensome. It says and you’d probably agree that Ireland deserves a break for the considerable amount of taxpayer money that has gone into the banks.
One of the options put on the table by Ireland has been to swap the notes for a long-term government bond – possibly sourced from the ESM – with the repayments spread over 40 years. What’s all this about? Well our dear Taoiseach Enda Kenny probably describes it best when he recently said it would be like switching “from a serious overdraft to a long-term, low-interest mortgage”.
The Department of Finance has also suggested that some relief on the interest rate paid on the principal would “translate into significantly improved deficits in the short-term, especially in 2013 and 2014″.
But all of this requires approval from the ECB and its governing council. That’s hard to get as Donnelly explains: “There is a general tone that Ireland created this mess, it allowed Anglo and INBS (Irish Nationwide) to happen, it decided to issue a blanket guarantee, it paid out the money, it issued the promissory notes and so Ireland needs to clean up its own mess.”
Patrick Honohan is pushing the case for a deal for Ireland as a member of the ECB’s governing council. Pic: Niall Carson/PA Wire
Didn’t we do something last year which meant we didn’t pay it? Can’t we do this again?
When Communications Minister Pat Rabbitte said in December that we didn’t pay the €3.06 billion last year he wasn’t entirely accurate. In fact what happened was that the government issued a bond to IBRC which was temporarily financed by NAMA (the state’s bad bank) before a longer term loan was agreed with Bank of Ireland. Under the terms of this deal BoI agreed to loan the State the money to pay the note for one year and in June of this year we are expected to repay it to BoI.
Confused? Well the main point is that theoretically it could be done again but it’s not viewed as a good idea. Namawinelake explains: “Bank of Ireland might agree to give us another loan for last year’s bond. But it is highly unlikely that Bank of Ireland will agree to continue to lend us €3 billion for last year’s bond plus another €3 billion for this year’s bond. It’s becoming a big exposure for that bank.”
Donnelly adds: “Last year’s five card trick - designed to give the Government something to confuse the public with – actually costs us more money. It results in no write-down on the total amount owed, but just hands the costs of the payment to future generations.”
The option is not among those currently being considered by the government, according to the Department of Finance.
Could we take a ‘haircut’ on promissory note repayments, in the way that haircuts were applied NAMA loans?
Theoretically yes but in reality, no. As we established earlier, the principal of the promissory note is that you agree to repay the amount in full. The ECB would take an extremely dim view on any discount.
What if we just didn’t pay it? What would happen?
In the words of the Department of Finance it “would be tantamount to a sovereign default, which would set Ireland apart as a country that had defaulted”. The government and its advisors thinks not paying would have an extremely negative impact on businesses and individuals and would ramp up the cost of borrowing for Ireland, which has been steadily declining since recently as evidenced by recent forays into the bond markets.
President of European Central Bank Mario Draghi. Pic: AP Photo/Michael Probst.
Donnelly takes a slightly different view. He says he asked the Minister for Finance for clarification on whether IBRC needs the €3.06 billion payment in March in order to meet its obligations. No response was forthcoming, he claims.
The Wicklow deputy also identifies a number of positive outcomes from not paying: Ireland’s sovereign debt would immediately fall by €28 billion and go towards making public debt sustainable and the link between bank and sovereign debt would be weakened – an ultimate aim of the eurozone leaders. It would also free up a lot of money to boost the economy.
What are those opposed to paying it proposing we do instead of paying the full amount?
Default. As Donnelly outlines above this would arguably have a number of positive effects although he’s not naive to the possible negative impact of default and we know a bit about what it did to Argentina – high interest rates and lawsuits. “There may be serious consequences for doing so,” he says, adding that his ultimate preference is for a “multilateral agreement which fairly shares the burden of bailing out Anglo and INBS with the rest of the Eurozone”.
He explains: “Ireland did not benefit from the promissory notes, but the eurozone as a whole did, through greater financial stability. Recent Eurostat analysis shows that Ireland has paid more than any other country towards the economic crisis – when you adjust their analysis for an error…the omission of the NPRF (National Pension Reserve Fund) contribution.
Donnelly claims that if the burden were to be shared equally across the eurozone, the amount owed by Ireland would fall to less than €1 billion. But he would accept “substantial burden sharing” in the form of the €31 billion debt being reduced to “no more than €10 billion”.
This is all pretty big stuff. Was there a Dáil vote on this?
The Dáil did vote through legislation relating to banks in 2008, 2009 and 2010 including the Credit Institutions Financial Support Act 2008 and the Credit Institutions Stabilisation Act 2010 which established the grounds for a promissory note being issued.
The latter is the only piece of legislation in the Irish statute book which contains the term ‘promissory note’ and the voting record shows that most of the current Cabinet voted against it.
The Dublin businessman David Hall argues that the notes are invalid under the Constitution and specifically should have been approved by a Dáil vote but last week the High Court disagreed with that claim and said in its verdict that only a member of the Dáil could challenge their legality.
In that case the State argued that bank legislation allows the Minister for Finance to spend money from a central fund without Oireachtas approval for where that money goes.
Hall is considering a Supreme Court appeal while Donnelly is among the TDs said to be considering a possible legal action. We asked the Department of Finance specifically why there was not a Dáil vote on the promissory notes and received no response.
Didn’t I read something about the ECB rejecting an Irish proposal to issue a long-term bond?
You did. Reuters and various other sources since then have said that the ECB ruled this out because it was in violation of the aforementioned Maastricht Treaty. Essentially it amounted to monetary financing which the ECB says is illegal under EU laws.
But more than illegality the ECB appears concerned that issuing a bond for Ireland would create a dangerous precedent. Namawinelake explains: “If the ECB changed its stance then next month, you might have Spain issuing €1 trillion of bonds which it markets to its banks, and the banks use those bonds to obtain cash from the ECB, and in that way Spain would have an extra €1 trillion”.
The ECB would lose control over the supply of money and that could create chaos in the markets. The bank’s view is that the promissory note arrangement is okay: IBRC can be funded up to the point where it is wound down, as is intended, and no rules are broken.
Much rides on the view of German chancellor Angela Merkel. Pic: Gero Breloer/Press Association
But the problem for Ireland is that it means paying back €3.06 billion every year for the next ten years, and that’s an awful lot of money. The government argues that Ireland is ‘a special case’ and Angela Merkel said as much last October.
The Department of Finance told us: “There is an understanding of the very great challenge placed on the backs of Irish taxpayers. Recent public comments by political leaders of other. Ministers for Finance, the European Commission, the IMF and other influential actors have recognised this sacrifice. Ireland has been recognised as a ‘special case’ and it is a case of following through on that recognition.”
“The Taoiseach has stated that solidarity works both ways. We’ve made painful sacrifices in successive budgets to hold up our part of the bargain. Now we’re looking for the support committed to us.”
So then, are we going to get a deal?
There are four meetings of the ECB governing council between now and 31 March so there is still time to put together a proposal that satisfies the bankers in Frankfurt. Finance Minister Michael Noonan told the Dáil last week: “I remain confident that an agreement can be reached.”
The government has a lot of credibility riding on getting a deal of some sort although it has never gone into specifics beyond the “long-term mortgage” Enda Kenny has talked about. It may yet give us more detail in a Dáil debate on the matter taking place this coming week.
Noonan was adamant last week that Ireland will not default though the government’s budget advisory council believes there is a 39 per cent chance this will happen while the Troika said little about the payment to Donnelly.
In short, everyone has an opinion but no-one can say for certain if a deal will be reached. So now we wait.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
So abortion up to 20 weeks in North Carolina is considered restrictive. By who?
^
Another man with all of the answers on what restrictions should be placed on bodily autonomy for women
@The Risen: nah, your the man with all the answers Tony. Yourself & Orla/Liam.
@The Risen: ^^ another person deflecting from the main ethical issue..
@Seamus Mac: * you’re
@The Risen:
Hahaha, the hypocrisy of the pro abortionists is something else.
It was nine men who signed the Roe v Wade bill, no? A bill based on a lie, don’t you remember?
@Candace: Seeing as though Roe v Wade was 1973, no I don’t remember. But as you do, can we take it you’re a 50+ year old male, again, with all the answers for women of child bearing age?
@The Risen:
Nah, your wrong again, I’m 1976 meself, but the case wasn’t too hard to study growing up.
So we’re you ok with 9 men signing in a bill regarding a bill into law while all along the bill actually being based on a lie??
I’ll wait.
@Candace: was the bill based on a lie or was that particular case based on a lie?
@Candace: Ah so you’re a 40 something man with all the answers for women on their reproductive rights. Oh, and my position on abortion is not based on any decision taken in a foreign court, whether you contest it was based on a lie or not.
@The Risen:
Yeah, it was a lie from beginning to end. And you’re a hypocrite with the morals of a rock.
@Candace: Love it when the childish insults start. Want to throw in a ‘big doo doo head’ for the audience?
@The Risen:
Childish insults, did you get that vibe from my comment, and there was me telling it how it is.
@Seamus Mac: By the women who do not wish to be pregnant
@Candace: awww hims got all annoyed by a simple question when all he’s basing his assumption that it’s a lie on is the word of said liar.
@Dave O’Keeffe:
Dave, I’m fond of our comment exchanges, but going on like our local multi account troll, Orla & Francis is a no no.
Abortion! The morally dead killing the innocent
@Jimmy Carroll: Can we take it you get your morals from the catholic church Jimmy?
@The Risen: do you get paid to deflect??
@The Risen: why do you presume that a person who supports the right to life gets their morals from a religion??
@Devilsavocado: Just ignore him. That’s just his tactic to dodge the truth.
@Devilsavocado: The terms and definitions you use are based on nonsense and religious edicts. A very loose nebulous definition of life is used as a marker plus the mysoginistic denial of bodily integrity. Then of course there is the problem of those without a uterus deciding.
@SteoG: what terms and definitions have I used?? You assume that I’m a religious person, I’m not, not in any way, so once again I ask, what makes you think I get my morals from a religion? in your mind does every person who struggles with the complexity of abortion have to walk around clutching rosary beads???
@SteoG: would you be so kind as to share your non-nebulous definition of life with us mere mortals?
@The Risen: where do you get your morals from?
@SteoG:
Give us the moral argument for destroying Human life in utero then?
@Seamus Mac: Critical thinking and reason
@The Risen: still no answer to my question??
@Devilsavocado: Isn’t “right to/pro… etc, etc, hijacked terms used by one side to try to project the opposite on any who disagree? I do not know whether you hold any religious conviction I can only take your word on it. I also struggles with the complexity of the issue. However the vast majority of the people who profess an absolute right are religious hence you get roped in. It is the absolutist nature of the debate where people will not accept any reasonable middle ground at all. You can be atheist and hold extreme views just as you can be religious and also liberal.
@Candace: Where do I say anything about destroying human life?
@The Risen: so from yourself. Your own personal morality.
@Devilsavocado: I looked at his twitter account.
@Seamus Mac: Yes. My morality/ethics are based on reason, they are not imposed by a religious authority.
@The Risen: you seem very impressed with yourself. Like i said, your own subjective moral relativism.
@SteoG: so it boils down to choice for you, the woman’s body so it’s her choice and her choice only, yes??
@The Risen: so it’s choice for you as well, the woman’s body the woman’s decision, yes??
@Seamus Mac: Where does your morals come from Seamus??
@Devilsavocado: It will never be a choice for me or any other man. So yes it is partly about choice which is just one of many reasons. Though I will accept the absolute opposite position when they campaign for equality for everyone. So when all people get the right to be tethered to other healthy people for life support when needed whether they (the healthy) like it or not. Then it will be the same right to life for all.
@SteoG: what about a transgender man?
@The Risen: *do
@SteoG: so for you abortion up to full term is acceptable? If not who are you do deny any woman that choice?
@The Risen: my morals are informed from experience & the teachings of the church. The issue of abortion however, if we use critical thinking, is quite clear cut. Human life begins at conception. Abortion takes a human life. You have to dehumanise the life in utero so that your moral standpoint appears okay but it will never be. Once you put restrictions on the value of a human life there is no going back.
@Seamus Mac: So, basically, you get your morals on the subject of abortion from your experience as a man and from the catholic church.
I’m glad neither men nor the church no longer hold any sway over womens reproductive rights.
@Devilsavocado: Now you are getting silly creating a strawman. Where did I say any such thing?
@Seamus Mac: What are you on about?
@The Risen:
1) Western civilisation and culture is based on Judeo-Christian values. Whether you are religious or nonreligious, this cannot be disputed.
2) Women’s reproductive rights cannot come at the expense of human life.
@Jack Simpson:
……and yet women are free to access safe, supervised, legal abortions regardless of your point, which is obviously little more than your opinion.
@SteoG: creating a straw-man?? Stop talking nonsense, you blame religion on people’s beliefs in supporting the right to life,, yet you believe in choice, but only up to a certain point time in the pregnancy?? What’s your reason for that?? Does it become immoral after a certain time?? If so when??
@The Risen: you must have skipped history class then.
@SteoG: you said it would never be a choice for any man.
@The Risen: thats not what i said at all. Have another read.
@Devilsavocado: I am not religious so I do not accept the religious view which is just based on a mans opinion. I don’t believe, I hold an opinion based on my reading of unbiased scientific and medical opinion the experience of health professionals and my own life experience. I then come to a conclusion based on reason. My opinion would fall in line with the first trimester with the conditions of only serious medical life threatening complications outside that period.
@Seamus Mac: Ok, I get you. My fault I was speaking in general terms. I don’t generally think in terms of trans people. Of course I should so have to try in future. The way I would view that is that if the transgender person with a uterus and ovaries becomes pregnant then the same rules apply.
@SteoG: my fault, i wasn’t clear.
@SteoG: I don’t agree with that but can accept it is a logical position. The problem with it is that others will leverage that position as the thin end of the wedge and keep pushing for ever more extreme positions. Also there is a difference between scientific and medical opinion. The Science is straightforward. It is alive and you have to kill it. The medical is that it isn’t aware or sentient so that it is ok to kill it. Quantum Biology may at some point open some different avenues.
@Seamus Mac: considering that church allows only men in priest and pope positions, its funny that women’s bodily functions are dictated by celibate men. Ironic ??
Some religious people are intimidating and terrorising women for using health care. If people want to be religious, that’s their prerogative, but they shouldn’t be foisting their religious views, as theocratic laws on others.
https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/what-it-takes-to-enter-the-last-remaining-abortion-clinic-in-kentucky
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/texas-abortion-death-penalty-bill-hb896-homicide-prolife-movement-a8863916.html
@KingCrisp: It’s not a religious thing, it’s human decency thing, I’m non religious as are many who support the right to life. As for your links the first one doesn’t play but it’s one clip and not representative of every clinic, there are plenty clips of prolife people just holding signs and saying nothing getting the crap kicked out of them just for standing there, these are also not representative of every pro abortion/pro life interaction. Your second clip asked why so many prolife people are in support of the death penalty, I can certainly see where both sides are coming from, it’s one thing to kill an innocent human but quite another to kill someone who has committed heinous crimes. Personally I prefer life sentences. Make them live every single day behind bars.
@Rachel O’ Meara: It’s human decency to provide womens healthcare. No babies are killed. It’s immoral to deny womens healthcare. It is a religious thing, to say otherwise, it is either disingenuous, or you are unawares as to the religious standpoint of women’s healthcare and sex etc. Your views are directly in line with these religious views, who use it to repress women’s reproduction and their access to healthcare. Masturbation is a sin and sexual procreation with pleasure is considered a sin. Religion dogma only sees sperm and sexual procreations only use, is for reproduction. Condoms are considered a sin and they where made illegal by the church in Ireland. The first clip is indicative of the intimidation outside of abortion clinics and advice clinics. Nobody should be allowed to terrorise and intimidate women who are seeking healthcare. Anyone who assaults people protesting is disgraceful. They can protest a large distance away as has happened in the UK, but not directly be allowed to harass and intimidate people.
The second link shows that some anti-abortion religious extremists are on a par with ISIS, with their penchant for killing people who don’t abide their religious laws. They want to execute women who avail of abortion in Texas. Religious men have a penchant for controlling women. In the past they murdered hundreds of thousands of women, by calling them witches, just to keep control of women and keep them in their place
The only deaths that have resulted from safe abortion in the US are from anti-abortion religious extremists terrorists, that have resulted in many deaths and serious injuries and from unsafe abortions that have resulted in around 3000 womens deaths and over two hundred thousand serious injuries, resulting in hospitalisation.
In the US extremist terrorists have blown up abortion clinics, with a plethora of murder/violence/extremist hate. One guy who shot and murdered 3 people said he was happy for what he had done :(
“Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion. Incidents of violence have included destruction of property, in the form of vandalism; crimes against people, including kidnapping, stalking, assault, attempted murder, and murder; and crimes affecting both people and property, including arson and bombings.
Anti-abortion extremists are considered a current domestic terrorist threat by the United States Department of Justice.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/04/11/planned-parenthood-shooter-happy-his-attack/32579921/
@KingCrisp: you’re deluded..
@KingCrisp: your anti racist views are in line with the anti racist views of the church, therefore you’re a religious nutter if we apply your remarkably illogical principles consistently. Correlation is not necessarily causation, and words are not assault, and will not be assault no matter how many times you repeat that erroneous interpretation. Assault is assault, except when it happens to people you dislike, in which case you refuse to recognise actual as being assault while repeatedly insisting words are assault when you dislike the words.
@KingCrisp: Abortion.Is.Not.Healthcare. If human life has to die it can’t logically be called care. It’s immoral to kill human life. It isn’t religious to want to stand up for humans whose rights have been trampled on. The church has many rules, just like other churches, I’m not religious so I don’t know much about their current rules and views. I just know that killing human life is wrong,it is not healthcare and it if women think they aren’t in control of their own bodies they are deluded. They have tons of choices, abstain from sex, have sex but use protection, double up on protection, even triple up on protection (it can be done), everything fails which is extremely unlikely get the morning after pill as a precaution. See loads of choices and a baby doesn’t have to die in the process.
@Rachel O’ Meara: ‘Abortion.Is.Not.Healthcare’
It is, according to the world health organisation, who list abortion drugs on their list of essential medicines.
What qualification do you have to question their position?
@The Risen: ‘It is according to the WHO’ – so what!? The WHO is not exactly a beacon of morality. It is only as good as the people that work in it. Clearly, it sets the bar low.
@Jack Simpson: morality according to whom? Certain religions don’t allow blood transfusions that are life saving because that’s considered immoral to them. Healthcare should not be dependent on someone’s else’s opinion or morals. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. Pretty simple really.
@The Risen: that’s what’s known as argumentum ab auctoritate, or argument from authority. I notice above you claim your morality stems from your application of reason. However, you appear to be struggling to apply reason here, instead falling into fallacy. Can’t help but question your relative morality in those circumstances I’m sure you’ll agree, as a reasonable person and all.
@Louise:
1) Agreed re religions and suspect beliefs BUT Western civilisation and society was founded on Judeo-Christian values. These values have had an enormous impact (mostly positive) on how we live today, e.g. the impact of the ten commandments on ‘western’ law.
2) One of the commandants is ‘thou shalt not kill’. This is reasonable. Supporting abortion goes against this. If you can morally justify it for unborn, what next? Newborns?
3) Abortion is not healthcare.
@winston smith: You have previously generally said to people that they should discuss the subject matter and not to personally attack people, to stick to the news article, if my memory serves me correct. You again have not addressed the journals media article and IMHO your personally attacking me and a lot of the other commenters in a very tetchy post. It’s got nothing to do with the article and there is no logic to any of this comment that is personally attacking me and religious people by calling them and me “religious nutter”. If you disagree with people of faith you should do so with a modicum of decorum, at the very least, instead of using nasty derogatory hateful words of “religious nutter”. Disagree by all means but you should use some civility towards religious people, even if they have different views.
@Rachel O’ Meara: I’ve shown you that it’s religious theocracy laws that is the driving force behind abortion, but you keep on ignoring facts. It doesn’t mean that a very small amount of non-religious people can’t hold the same view. Abortion is health care and not killing babies as you and religious people say exactly the same. The only people that normally say this are religious people. No babies are killed. Read my comment again about religious views that determined reproduction rights in law in Ireland etc. Condoms and abortion where illegal solely down to religion. You are singing from the same hymn sheet and you have even thrown in a very nasty hateful anti-women “abstain from sex” ergo keep your legs closed that a small amount of religious people, have also said in the comments. IMHO it’s strange that so called non-religious people that say they are “I’m not religious so I don’t know much about their current rules and views” even though there words are verbatim.
“everything fails which is extremely unlikely get the morning after pill as a precaution” people don’t always know if they are pregnant with contraception and the pill, ergo they are pregnant unexpectedly.
Before Roe vrs Wade note from above: “The only deaths that have resulted from safe abortion in the US are from anti-abortion religious extremists terrorists, that have resulted in many deaths and serious injuries and from unsafe abortions that have resulted in around 3000 womens deaths and over two hundred thousand serious injuries, resulting in hospitalisation, per annum”. Abortion health care has saved the lives and serious injury of many women, but you want to either jail these women using theocratic laws, or let them die and suffer due to unsafe abortions, that happen irrespective of anti-women religious laws.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/13/donald-trump-evangelical-christians-republicans-abortion-supreme-court
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/04/northern-irish-woman-suspended-sentence-self-induced-abortion
Off we go to the Supreme Court…
abortion the eugenics tool nazis love
@Ismise Máire:
Margaret Sanger was fond of both too.
@Ismise Máire: The NSDAP or nazis were strongly anti smoking and passed laws making cruelty to animals illegal. Thank you for your non argument.
@SteoG: it was more of a statement.
The whole motivation behind enacting these laws prior to testing viability is that they will be challenged the courts. Some have even admitted to this, yet their opposition still dutifully plays into their hands.
Good total unrealistic legislation. This about control. If you are not invited get out of the bedroom, and doctors office. None of your business.
@Róisín Daly: I want my doctor to prescribe me a few thousand benzos so I can sell them down the boardwalk. Should legislators be allowed interfere in that if not invited to do so?
Good!
have your say