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.
A SUMMARY OF the Attorney General’s advice to government as to why it should opt for a repeal of the Eighth Amendment, with the inclusion of an enabling clause giving the Oireachtas the power to legislate, has been published.
The Department of Health prepared an information note for publication in order to explain the legal reasons that informed its approach.
Legal advice from the Attorney General is privileged, but there have been calls for the full advice to be placed in the public domain.
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar told the Dáil today that the summary note should be sufficient, explaining that it is rather unprecedented for such details to be published.
Opposition leaders are currently being briefed on the Attorney General’s advice.
The government announced yesterday that it has decided to hold a referendum on Ireland’s abortion laws by the end of May.
Rather than adopting the recommendation from the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment to have a straight repeal or “repeal simpliciter”, the government opted for an enabling clause to be included in the Constitution giving the Oireachtas the power to legislate on abortion.
No certainty
The note states that the Attorney General, Seamus Woulfe, advised the Health Minister Simon Harris that there is no absolute certainty about the post-repeal landscape of rights.
If Article 40.3.3 was repealed outright, it might subsequently be argued before the courts that the unborn have residual rights arising under other Articles of the Constitution, stated the Attorney General – who highlighted that this could continue to restrict the power of the Oireachtas to legislate on the issue.
To mitigate the uncertainty that might arise in such circumstances, the Attorney General advised that consideration should be given to inserting wording into the Constitution that expressly affirms the right of the Oireachtas to legislate for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.
The summary note states that this approach “would have the advantage of making it clear, through express words, that the Oireachtas has power to legislate on the subject of the termination of pregnancy”.
It adds:
If the amendment is adopted by the people, the Oireachtas would have an express power to legislate to regulate termination of pregnancy as it considers appropriate, in the same way as it legislates in every other area of policy.
The insertion of the additional wording would bring greater constitutional certainty to the primary authority of the Oireachtas to make laws in this area, dealing with controversial social and medical matters.
Taoiseach’s viewpoint
Last night, the Taoiseach outlined his view on the issue, stating that he would be campaigning for a repeal of the Eighth Amendment.
With Varadkar making his opinion known, all eyes are now on other ministers to outline their position.
Education Minister Richard Bruton is amongst those Cabinet ministers who support both a repeal of the Eighth Amendment and subsequent legislation which will allow for the termination of pregnancies up to 12 weeks.
He let his views be known for the first time during an interview with RTÉ’s Drivetime this evening.
He said that it is “time we consider” the current arrangements and repeal the controversial amendment.
He also confirmed that he would support the legislation that is being drafted by his colleague Simon Harris.
Following last night’s referendum announcement, concerns have been raised about the proposed legislation, particularly the provision of the 12-week time period for unrestricted access to an abortion.
Court challenges
The Attorney General’s advice warns that any legislation introduced (which would only happen if the referendum is passed) could face court challenges.
It states that following the removal of the Eighth Amendment, new laws, such as providing the provision for unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks would “remain subject to review by the courts like any other legislation”.
“While no approach can be completely free from the risk of legal challenge” the
Attorney General advises that the approach recommended is likely to be “a
legally safer option than a simple repeal”.
Tánaiste Simon Coveney has outlined that while he supports the repeal of the amendment from the Constitution, he believes the 12-week period in the proposed legislation goes too far.
It is understood that a number of other ministers raised concerns about the 12-week provision during yesterday’s four-hour long special Cabinet meeting.
Politicians must give clarity
Labour’s Joan Burton has said that politicians that support the repeal of the Eighth Amendment but who are opposed to the 12-week unrestricted access to abortion must outline the alternative during the course of the debate.
Speaking to the reporters today, Burton said:
“I think it would be helpful if over the course of the campaign they were able to explain.”
Labour’s Jan O’Sullivan said the repeal question is the most important question, and urged those with concerns to “inform” themselves as to why the 12-week recommendation was put forward by the Oireachtas Committee.
She said that ultimately, politicians are elected to legislate.
Questions have been raised as to whether the 12-week time period could be watered down. However, senior government sources have ruled out suggestions that the proposed legislation could be altered to include a lower time period.
However, others point out that amendments could be made when the legislation is debated.
“It will be fully debated and people will have a chance to propose amendments,” said Bruton.
Challenge facing campaigners
One of the ministers who is understood to have spoken about the three-month time period during last night’s Cabinet meeting is Housing Minister Eoghan Murphy. When asked about it today, he said that he was precluded from talking about what was said at Cabinet.
He clarified, however, that his is favour of repealing of the Eighth Amendment and supports unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks.
Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe said a referendum is “long overdue”. He added that whatever difficulties politicians faced in coming to their decision, it paled in comparison to what women in Ireland have faced for decades.
In the history of the State there has never been a more conniving and evil government.
@Roddy Reagan: FG/Lab 1983
@Quango: they are up there but this lot take the biscuit. A duplicitous shower of hucksters.
@Roddy Reagan: the Haughey years
@Steve Mac: FG/Lab get the blame, but it was his “baby”, for want of a better word.
@Roddy Reagan: reading the Examiner there’s a 60 40 split on this in the cabinet. You wouldn’t guess that from this article.
@Roddy Reagan: https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/taoiseachs-big-bills-leo-varadkar-11932298
If a baby is determined to have Down Syndrome after 12 weeks can the mother attain an abortion on “health” grounds? We are taking the first step down the road to eugenics.
@Roddy Reagan: Yes yes roddy, in the same way that marriage equality was the first step down the road to people marrying their pets.
@The Risen: well we do have people marrying their carers for inheritance tax fraud purposes because of SSM.
@Roddy Reagan: You think straight people don’t do this also?
Get back to me when somebody marries Rover.
@Roddy Reagan: an expert group of doctors and paediatricians have already publicly stated that Down syndrome cannot be detected before 12 weeks.
@Roddy Reagan: But the mother can do that now if she wishes, she just has to go to UK. You’re not preventing this happening. Is it a case of out of sight, out of mind with you?
@Paul: with medical advances that will be down to 6 weeks in a couple of years
@Roddy Reagan: POLDPA introduced “abortion up to birth”. How many of them have we had in Ireland since 2013?
@cormac o neill: Nice set of crystal balls you have there. Any heads up on Fridays Euromillions?
@Roddy Reagan: Tax avoidance is not fraud. It is perfectly legal. There is nothing unlawful to get married for tax purposes.
@Roddy Reagan: Go adopt a disabled. Then let us all tell you how blessed you are.
@Roddy Reagan: what about all the other countries where is legal? Hasn’t happened to them.
@Paul: Actually 95% cases of Downs Syndrome can be detected within the first 10-12 weeks.
Abortion is Fine Gael’s answer to the housing and trolley crisis.
@Roddy Reagan: Ugh, you’re pathetic.
@Roddy Reagan: well said this is there answer cutbacks of the cruelest kind. I do not trust the present politicians or future politicans on this issue it should Always be the PEOPLES DESCION,by way of referendumm only .not present day or future politicians. They pretend its because abortion pills are been sought through the internet. Do your job and Block the internet sites. Its not rocket science. They have more and more pathetic excuses every day
@Roddy Reagan: Why don’t you use a real name and a real profile, otherwise you’re trolling.
@Roddy Reagan: it’s going to cause mayhem in the hospitals. 600k waiting list is just about to get a lot longer. Given that abortion has a time constraints it will be bumped up in the queue. The question is will doctors be compelled to perform abortions or will they have a choice. Will abortions be covered by the hse or will they import “clinicians” from outside of the jurisdiction and open private clinics kching. .Simon has thought through this very carefully.
@Roddy Reagan: 85 people so far like your comment roddy Mental
@thewolf: People who smoke and get cancer or drink drive and have accidents are treated in our hospitals even though it’s their ‘ lifestyle choice’ which has caused it, are you going to start complaining about that? I don’t have children but my taxes still go towards paying for education but I accept that, it’s called being part of society.
@thewolf: ridiculous !
We need to establish some ground rules for the debate here so can we all agree to use emotive arguments and sound bites and call anyone names who disagrees with us.
If the repeal referendum is passed that will be the end of it….If not passed will be back again in 5 years for another go….Like Lisbon will be run until it ls passed….
@John003: Actually Nice and Lisbon went to referendum twice because after the first round failed Ireland asked for and gained concessions. That’s why the people were asked a second time, after concessions were made by the EU. Nobody was forced to vote differently the second time around.
@Kelly Davis-Jordan: “Ireland asked for and gained concessions”. Yes but those concessions, especially our tax autonomy, are going to be cancelled by the EU as it doesn’t suit their agenda. The EU call it democracy I think…LOL
@Kelly Davis-Jordan: Says Leo’s spin doctors. ‘Concessions’ are Eurospeak for unsubstantiated contra-waffle to baffle the ignorant masses and make them believe somebody listened. Whereas, the ECB/EU always have our boys and girls in green jumping like marionettes for pensions.
What the Pro-choice supporters have been campaigning for is to repeal the 8th amendment. To give women the right to choose what is best for them in any given circumstance. It doesn’t mean that every woman who wishes to exercise bodily autonomy is going to rush and book an abortion, far from it.
The fact is, the 8th amendment hasn’t stopped women getting abortion. It just means they have to travel to another country for an abortion. All to many women have had to go down that, at times lonely road. Which is wrong and devastating for many women. The 8th amendment has restricted what treatment is available to women who find themselves in difficulty with their pregnancy. Again this is wrong. Women have died, when they could have lived their lives.
This repeal the 8th is not going to force those women who would never see abortion as an option to have one. But it may save their lives one day.
Those on the pro-life side, the women there, object to the repeal the 8th on many grounds. For some it’s religious, for some its a sense of morality, for other it’s pure conviction, or a mix of. For those of the purely religious conviction, you must realise most people don’t want their laws governed by religious dogma. For the others, you cannot deny women who don’t hold your views on the issue the right to choose what they consider is best for them. And as such it’s going to be put to a majority vote to decide the issue. You will never be in a place where you have to decide, as your convictions won’t be effected one way or the other.
For the men who wish to retain the 8th amendment, get real. Not one of you will ever have to make the decision regardless of how you feel on the issue. You can never be pregnant. So why should you deny those women who want the right to choose what is best for them? Your life will never be at stake due to complications with a pregnancy.
It’s time to allow women to choose. Repeal the 8th.
@Dave Doyle: So have you any opinion on the nurse in Sweden who recently lost her job as she did not want to participate in abortions?
She had no choice on the matter.
My Mother was shown an actual aborted baby (Foetus@ the Risen) when working as a nurse in the UK in the 1970′s. It really affected her and nobody gave a damn.
When its the law of the land, everyone must tow the line.
This isn’t trying to scare monger or be overly emotional; Its reality.
A reality that even the woman undergoing an abortion is shielded from, who get to choose even if they want to see the ultrasound or not.
Its a lie. People are being lulled into a false sense of security.
@Dave Doyle: if men shoulnt have a say why are you posting so vehemently for choice. The mother and father should always have a say. Shouldnt the unborn have a say.
This really doesn’t sit well. It still puts a provision into the constitution directed at a subset of our citizens. As the 8th caused such problems, should the matter of abortion not be removed altogether.
@The Risen: it should, but I completely trust practicing Catholic, Jesuit alumni, FG member Seamus Woulfe, to provide completely impartial recommendation that goes completely against all citizens and committee recommendations, and not introduce some unnecessary complexity to a simple repeal question.
@The Risen: it can’t because the Supreme Court may be forced to strike down any legislation if challenged, as the Constitution lends itself to rights of the unborn. Putting in a clause allowing the Dail to legislate removes that option from the Supreme Court.
@Paul: I genuinely hope you are correct Paul.
@Gulliver Foyle: that’s a horrendous comment
@cormac o neill: Pray for him.
@cormac o neill: cheers, bud. I myself have a problem with it.
@Paul: The Supreme Court can still act on the issue. They (The new liberal FG) are merely ‘hoping’ that the courts won’t act because of the introduction of a clause allowing the Dail to legislate.
It’ll no doubt be challenged by pro life people if passed by referendum. That I’ve no problem with as long as these people are footing the bill themselves. Too many cases to supreme court with taxpayers footing the bill, get a go fund me page and like minded people will no doubt support your case
@Anthony Whelan: and if it isn’t passed it’ll no doubt be challended by the pro choice people.
@Sam Harms: How would that work Sam, on what grounds?
@Anthony Whelan: referenda cannot be challenged.
@Sam Harms: so the pro choice would appeal a vote loss on repealing the 8th amendment. Seriously
@Paul: maybe not I’m not up to date on it’s legalities for appeal but I’m sure certain words and sentences within referenda most certainly will be if not they’ll hardly need advice from the attorney general
@Anthony Whelan: Most likely it will be challenged before any vote. As the Pro Choice lobby have argued for years, the repeal of the eighth amendment will return the constitution to it’s pre 1983 position in which the rights of the unborn child were already protected. The proposal to make a further constitutional amendment to give the Dáil the authority to legislate for abortion, if passed, could be regarded as putting two clauses in the constitution in conflict with one another. A Supreme Court challenge from someone, or the convening of the Council of State to initiate one, would seem inevitable if this is the proposal the Government places before the people.
Its just wrong.
@Robert Deane: It is wrong and its sickening. Sick and unjust.
@Mary: Any Catholic FG’er complicit in enacting abortion legislation will require a long time in the confessional box.
There is little doubt that this referendum will fail and fail by quite a margin. Of course not everybody will agree, same as when I said Brexit would win and Trump would win.
@GO GREEN: Ugh, I fear you may be right. I’m pro choice, but think there’s a lot of counting chickens going on around here.
We are been asked to do away with any right to life for unborn babies and our right as an electret to ever have a say about the subject again no matter how liberal abortion becomes. They have been trying to con us into this for the last number of years and they are banking on the fact that we’re to stupid to realise we’re been conned into giving up this right.
@Stephen: they never had a ‘right to life’ to begin with..
@Stephen: well said giving the say to politicans is tantamount to stupidy on behalf of electorate
@Stephen: well no, what their proposing is that the government have a constitutional right to legislate on the matter. This is both necessary to legislate now, and to allow future governments to change the legislation should public opinion demand it. Seems like a good deal for both sides.
@Stephen: A foetus does not have a right to life. You appear to be arguing that a foetus has the right to be born. Two very different things.
@Are U Rosie too: actually, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly said:
“Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”
A human embryo, or prenatal human is just that human – therefore have a right to life.
@Michael Wall: Except that their right to life may be at the expense of the pregnant person. You may wish to note the article regarding slavery. The use of a person’s body against their will, for the sole purpose of another, such as a foetus, could be considered a form of slavery. And it appears you are also confusing the right to life with the right to be born.
One only has to look at varadkar and harris to know they they are boys attempting to do a mans work ,muppets supported by the european establishment hell bent on carrying out their orders for the mass slaughter of defenceless unborn children ,sleep well
@Anthony Gallagher: If it’s unborn, it’s not a child. It is a foetus.
@The Risen: Tell that to a mother before labor.
@The Risen: Don’t get so hung up on the terminology, it means nothing, Believe me that little baby is a baby before and after it comes into the world, it does not just morph into a baby on it’s way out of the womb.
Putting it to the public vote will be throwing pearls in front of pigs.
People who are in complete denial of what’s at stake.
I’m seriously so heart broken i’m no longer engaging in this debate.
Never is it a comprehensive conversation anyway. Its from one angle only. Always.
One victim in the picture and its us women who are ‘always’ seen as the victim.
Message is: Being pregnant is a fate worse than death. The end.
@Mary: Do you genuinely think you are going to have a positive influence for your cause using such emotive, hyperbolic, language? Try discussing the issue, because at the moment you’re probably only being taken seriously by he people who already agree with you.
@The Risen: exactly!
@Mary: leaving it to politicians who wanted to charge us for water,gave all our money to banks and private investors, they now want to kill healthy babies for no reason up to 3 months….how could any trust any politician on this issue they have no backbone or courage to stand up for the unborn and the mother equally. This is a fealbreaker for many many many voters
@The Risen: i dont think marys language is emotive ,or hyperbolic ,its sincere and honest .
Repeal and Replace was also the only way of potentially getting it passed as well!
@Paul: Paul agreeing with the powers that be. Well I never!
@Paul: removing the 8th leaves the rights of the unborn at the mercy of the Dail which continues to move further and further to the left.
@Roddy Reagan: you mean the Dail which is elected by the people?
@Paul: Like Harris and Varadkar were “ProLife” on the campaign trail. Your good old leftie friend Pat Rabbitte “Isn’t that what you do during an election?” set the precedent there.
@Roddy Reagan: If the rights of the unborn are so ‘complex’ and ‘subjective’,
how would it even be a crime if anyone decided to kill my unborn baby against my wishes.
What’s the difference if i decide to put it to death or if somebody else chooses to? What difference will it make?
If a doctor does it or some thug on the street?
@Mary: Because if someone decided to “kill (your) unborn baby against (your) wishes”, you, an individual person recognised as such under Irish legislation, would have been subjected to physical harm for which there is legislation to protect you against. Abortion is not classified as murder or assault because a foetus does not have personhood under the eyes of the law. To do so invites criminal conviction for pregnant people who spontaneously abort and cannot prove they had no part to play in it.
@Felicity Hensen: It didn’t cause ‘me’ harm it caused my unborn child harm. You see the distinction?
@Mary: If it’s unborn, it’s not a child. You see the distinction.
@The Risen -Deny, minimise, justify. Classic stuff here.
Its a ‘nothing’ as far as your concerned and people like you confirm my worst fears.
@Mary: The word ‘child’ usually denotes a person between the time of birth and puberty. You cannot be an ‘unborn child’ any more the you can be an undead corpse.
Oh, and I don’t cosider it ‘nothing’, I consider it an embryo, then a foetus. You know, the actual correct definition.
@Mary:Buy a new pillow.Your dreams are terrible.
@The Risen: You like to play a game of semantics & its tiresome to say the least.
@Are U Rosie too: ?
@Mary: “You like to play a game of semantics”
No, I like to play a game of ‘using the proper terms to describe stuff’
@Mary: Ridiculous argument, no one is saying it’s the people’s choice. The whole point of the pro choice movement, is that it is solely the woman who is pregnant’s choice.
@Sarah Connor: Why is it ridiculous if the unborn’s rights are at the mercy of somebody else’s ‘CHOICE’?
They have no objective rights; only subjective ones.
@Mary: If you could provide the scenario where you are pregnant and an abortion is performed against your will. And if you could please explain how that didn’t infringe your autonomous bodily and legislative rights, that’d be great.
@Felicity Hensen: I can outline to you the story of a woman who was carrying a baby who had life limiting conditions & who was 100% pressured and emotionally blackmailed into having an abortion by her doctor!
Like to undermine this point as well? Fire away!
@Mary: You can of course outline that woman’s story. It is, however, wholly different from a person having an abortion performed on them against their will, as per your original comment. Any person, pregnant or otherwise, who feels that they are being coerced into any medical procedure against their will, by any medical professional, has the right to walk away from the situation. And if that is impossible and the procedure is carried out. They can lodge a complaint, and if need be, commence legal proceedings.
@The Risen: An unborn child might be called a foetus in medical terms, but it is addressed by the mother and father and family, and family friends and doctors as baby. Your doctor would never say, lets see how your foetus is doing, he would say lets see how baby is doing. Using foetus instead of child or baby is purposefully done by those on the pro choice side, it reduces the baby’s stature from a human child to a bunch of cells.
@Tom&Gerry: A miscarriage might be called a spontaneous abortion in medical terms, but it is addressed by the mother, father, and family, and family friends and doctors as a miscarriage.
The use of different words by people in certain circumstances does not alter the facts or reality of a situation. In utero, a baby or child is a foetus. Calling a foetus a foetus does not alter the species of said foetus, they are genetically human, they are simply in the early developmental stages.
Jounal been very selective in comments allowed to post. CENSORSHIP press council take note
So the public vote blindly,as they have to trust in what fg,ff,put into legislation.yeah,right,another mess as you dont know what you are really voting for.
Lads where’s the article on Steak knife getting arrested ? Thus popcorn is getting cold
This referendum is about women’s health, about women’s rights, about the right of women to choose what’s best for their own bodies. The constitution is no place to discuss women’s health issues, and Ireland’s politicians should recognise the need for abortion services for women in Ireland. The hypocrisy is we export our abortions to England and Europe by the thousands pretending we don’t need such services in Ireland. We do. Repeal the Eight, and provide safe, legal and free abortion services in Ireland.
@Michael Martin: your as misinformed as your namesake. All abortions purpose is to kill the baby, which you and fellow pro choice bigots ignore
@Michael Martin: Ireland already exports Irish people with medical problems to England on a constant basis, Irish people have had to travel to America and other countries for treatments that Ireland can not facilitate. How is our health system miraculously going to improve to facilitate all these abortions, will pregnant women now be able to jump the queue and be given preferential treatment before people with life threatening illnesses?
It goes without saying that there are cases where abortion is an absolute necessity for medical reasons for the mother and baby.and absolutely should be available here. Those cases are special and completely different than cases where it just does not suit to have a baby.
I think this is great news for both sides. Removing the 8th amendment is the biggest hurdle, after that I’m happy with the government coming up with legislation based on public opinion. Myself, I would be 100% pro choice, and would be delighted with free access up to 12 weeks (longer for FFA), but if we can even legislate for just rape, incest and FFA, and the government can revisit it in a few years, I’ll be happy with that. Similarly, if opinion sways the other way, and for some reason it all goes wrong (unlikely), the government can put strickter restrictions on.
@Sarah Connor: It is improbable to legislate for rape and incest, and certainly not in a meaningful way that would avoid further traumatising of already highly vulnerable people.
@Felicity Hensen: true, so without restriction up to.12 weeks is good.
@Sarah Connor: Yes. Which is why it was suggested. Anyone arguing that they’d allow abortion in cases of rape or incest have not taken the time to consider the victim, nor how to implement such a measure.
@thewolf: Hello…..we, the taxpayers are currently paying a very high price for people’s lifestyle choices, fact is that abortion is way more cost effective from the point of view of the government & the working class!! Our body, our choice…..let the people decide
The choice here is giving our inept legislature the power to legislate on a life or death issue and despite the need to overhaul archaic viewpoints, the answer has to be no, nay, never.
How will it be established with certainty whether or not a woman is 12 weeks pregnant? Some women might not realize they are pregnant for a few weeks following conception. Or is there a development at 12 weeks that is a recognized marker? Just curious!!
This 12 weeks abortion regime is a #repealthe8th red herring.
The referendum is about removing the right to life of all unborn children right up to the very moment of birth and that means his or her head has come fully out of the birth canal.
If 8th Amendment is gone the Government can have abortion to up 20 weeks 24 weeks or whenever, it can. If it decides it will allow abortion for kids with DS up to birth like in England, it can.
We cannot allow our constitution to adversely affect the outcome for any woman, the right to life of the fetus is not equal to right to life of a mother, even if you appose abortion on demand, which is a reasonable view,
Medical staff cannot have their hands tied when making life and death decisions during labour, the consequence of that is that abortion may become legal, a sad reality that has affected many societies,
Do most ppl on here not use their actual identity.
Woman or man up.
have your say