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.
SIX PRO-CHOICE TDS have delcared that they intend to vote against the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill 2013.
This evenining Clare Daly, Joan Collins, Richard Boyd Barrett, Mick Wallace, Joe Higgins and Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan said they would all oppose the bill despite their pro-choice views.
They said that in the absence of a referendum to repeal Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, which places the life of the mother and the unborn on an equal footing, they could not support it.
Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan said this article is “unnecessarily retained” in the bill and that it is “perverse” that a doctor must allow a medical condition that is not in itself life-threatening – such as inevitable miscarriage – become potentially lethal before they can perform a termination.
Speaking to TheJournal.ie he said that his main concerns are that the bill does not provide adequate protection for women who are raped or include fatal foetal abnormality.
“I have sisters, I had a mother, I have aunts and I have daughters,” he said. “My priority is their health and if one of my female relative was raped and they felt they needed to purge their body of it, that should be their choice.”
In a statement earlier today, Joe Higgins said he could not support the bill as it “represents a betrayal of women and the memory of Savita Halappanavar whose life would not have been saved with this legislation”.
He said that the bill, as it stands, is more restrictive than the Supreme Court Ruling in 1992.
Regardless of the significance being attached to this legislation by both the government and by the most virulent anti-abortion elements and the Catholic Church the plain reality is that this is not a significant step forward for women.
The Socialist Party TD said the definition of unborn life in the Bill creates the possibility of fresh lines of attack from reactionaries on to right to IVF treatment as well as impeding stem cell research.
He added that the offences section is “barbaric” as a woman who becomes pregnant following a rape and procures an abortion stands to face a sentence of more than twice that for a convicted rapist.
Joan Collins also announced her decision earlier on Twitter:
This evening Richard Boyd Barrett criticised the exclusion of fatal foetal abnormality in the bill, which he said “will force women whose pregnancies will inevitably end in tragedy to go full term or travel overseas for terminations”.
Clare Daly said the bill will make terminations illegal during an inevitable miscarriage while there is still a foetal heartbeat. “If a woman gets an infection in such circumstances, doctors will have to delay a termination until her life is at risk,” she said.
Referring to the suidical ideation clause, Mick Wallace said that the government are putting obstacles in the way of “despairing women”, forcing overseas those who are able to travel, in order to placate the anti-abortionists in their midst and the anti-abortion minority in Irish society.”
I agree that this bill doesn’t go far enough and is too much of a compromise, but I’m not sure that voting against it is the best way to argue that point…
Ye I agree Rob. The bill is a tiny, tiny, tiny baby step in the right direction but at least it is pointing toward the right direction. Criticize it & approve it. The fact that rape has been left out is bloody disgusting, I’m guessing all those pro-lifers would love another son, brother/sister or nephew/niece in their family in the event of a loved one getting pregnant through a rape. Makes me sick to my teeth and ashamed of some of my fellow citizens.
Abstain IMO
how does one “abstain” from rape.
They’re right to vote against it. This will prove a defining moment for the pro-life movement. The argument of pro-abortionists has for so long been predicated on women’s health. They have been both ruthless and successful in manipulating tragedies like that in Galway in an attempt to kick open the door to abortion on demand. Tonight, that route to the electorate is closing. The legal threat to our prohibition to abortion is also being nullified and the legislation which is satisfying it is regulated by stringent conditions which will mitigate against abuse of the suicide provision. After tonight, no politician in the mainstream will want to touch abortion again. It is off the table for a generation and much of the ammunition pro-abortionists have become accustomed to using has been nullified. A victory for pro-life if ever there was one.
i would agree with you except for the 14 year sentance. for all the (limited) progress it makes, the sentance for obtaining an abortion on this island is outrageous! really would make me hesitant to vote for it.
did you read the article at all there “egg”?. theyre voting against it on the grounds it doesnt do enough for the Pro-Choice movement… they are in no way voting “no” in support of the “pro-murdering sick women/pro criminising rape victims” movement.
Egg: how brave you are, hiding behind a pseudonym. I can only imagine you’re another parachute account… Your language is straight out of the Youth Defence manifesto. You and your ilk expressing glee over this whole sorry mess is proof of your complete disregard for those mothers and children you claim to protect. Behind that fake name is a vile, vile person and I pity anybody who has the misfortune to know you.
Maureen- how or why they’re voting doesn’t matter. They lost the game. It’s out of their hands. In the same way that your name calling matters not a jot. Sorry. But when you wake up tomorrow morning women will be safer, thankfully but Abortion will be in no way easier in this country. All that will have happened will be that it will be taken off the political agenda entirely and the prospect of a wholesale real change in Abortion laws will have dramatically declined and you’ll look back a month or a year from now, scratch your head and wonder how that happened. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
”Yes I agree Rob. The bill is a tiny, tiny, tiny baby step in the right direction ”
– so maybe in 20 or so years time – there will be another step . How the politicians fudge – but when it comes to robbing the people of money – it is all done quickly – no problem .
‘Game’? You think this is a ‘game’? You disgust me!
Rob- you’re in favour of killing babies. How much weight exactly do you think I attach to your moral compass? I mean seriously, can you imagine how little I care about your musings? The arrogance…
Really? Off the table? If a method was brought in to legalise abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities, rape and incest, a majority of the people would support it easily.
Doubtful politicians would have the courage, but they didn’t anyway.
Nick- You’re a realist. You know the political parties are battered & bruised after this. FG are down 5, Labour and SF 1 each. FF split. They won’t touch it with a barge pole for decades. And it’s not an issue that influences party preferences amongst the electorate. So, yeah. It’s off the table. The usual suspects will jump up & down about it but the Clare Daly’s of this World are white noise at the best of times. This is a bad night for your camp. The opportunity here was for a quantum leap forward. Instead ye took a step to the side. You must realise this?
Do you really consider people like Shatter or Simon Harris to be “the usual suspects” on abortion? For the first time, people who I would never have considered to be “pro choice” have expressed concerns for families who deal with a child who will not survive or for rape survivors.
Considering rapists seem to get off with a fine, the 14 years seems a tiny bit insane alright. But who cares, right? It’s only women.
I’d be very torn myself. Honestly, though, I don’t know who this bill actually helps. They’re right that the constitution needs to be changed. The problem is that the reference in the constitution is always taken to mean the fetus has more right to life than the woman, such as in the case of Savita. They knew that fetus would never live, and yet they allowed it’s continued heartbeat to kill the mother. That’s not equal right to life at all. And women also should have a right to good health.
I think it will help cancer patients like Michelle Harte and C from the ABC case.
Nick- it doesn’t matter what Alan Shatter thinks. The Fine Gael party will put the genie back into the bottle tonight and seal it shut. Be honest- you think someone raising their hand saying “Lets revisit abortion” five years from now will get a hearing? After they haemorrhaged TD’s? Not a chance. Especially given that numbers will be much tighter after the next election. The FF parliamentary party split in two and defied the overwhelming pro-life position of its membership. They all just want it to go away. And it will.
Did you say tiny, tiny, baby steps?
Bad Law as a Band-Aid on another national embarrassment. The reality of what some will regard as a victory will prove to have a very bitter aftertaste.
The practices involved when seeking access to a termination on Mental Health grounds only serve to highlight a preferable service in the UK. That’s what this government want and that’s what the people will get.
The political parties sit back patting themselves on the back on a job well done and those in the real world have to suffer on.
I completely see their point. The bill is not pro-choice and not good for women, but it’s all we’ve got at the moment.
I’ve been around and voting since 1982. It’s been a mostly hopeless position being pro-choice. Nothing improves at all, for decades. This is a tiny step, not even a step, a shuffle, in the right direction. But I say grab it, vote for it, use it as something to build on.
Also, it is a bad, bad law for women and for individual human rights which means it will be successfully challenged at some point in the courts. It’s really the only way to push this issue slowly forward, win in the Irish courts, win in European courts, move forward slowly, slowly, slowly.
Katie, if this bill is so bad then how come these TDs did not voice their objections and vote against it last week in the first vote?
This is nothing more than an attempt to get cheap publicity. They know now that they’ll get some time on the nine o’clock news wheras if they voted for it they wouldn’t. It’s political opportunism of the worst kind and if a government TD did something like this, the comment thread here would explode in anger and rightly so.
I saw Boyd Barrett on the Vincent Browne show early last week voicing these concerns so I would imagine he did so in the Dail.
Then why did he not vote against it the first time?
Would say I agree with the deputies views, and I can understand why they are voting against. I mean, it seems like it will be even harder for a woman to get an abortion after this bill is introduced.
How can it be harder than not having abortion as an option at all?
Because there is less room for discretion. The law will be very clear. No wiggle room. Just stringent conditions to which medical professionals will have to adhere or face severe repercussions. The “the law is grey in this area” justification for Abortion has been removed.
Fair play to them for standing their ground but wouldn’t it be better to vote yes now and take it as a first step on a long journey instead of voting no and not moving forward?
14 years jail for some one who procures an abortion? Hardly a step forward in any journey.
Yea that’s all the bill will do. ffs…
Is there anything you don’t oppose Kerry. Or if a different party were in gov would you find your way to supporting? No other government ever bothered to take it this far. Stop opposing just for the sake of it…
Kerry-only if it under illegal circumstances. If they stay within the law and our constitution they have nothing to fear. Like the rest of us.
I would never be an advocate of abortion but I respect that others may need it – for whatever reasons. My beliefs should not impact on that. Also, a 14 year sentence for an illegal abortion is frankly insane. Bad enough that a woman has travel abroad, even worse that she is vilified for it.
Dave- why are you not an advocate of abortion? What is it about it that you don’t like?
Egg – Dave is clearly exercising his right to chose and also respecting others right to chose. It is not for anyone to advocate on abortion. It is up to every woman/ couple to make a decision and Dave is kindly respecting this.
Being pro choice doesn’t mean you would choose to have an abortion yourself. It simply means you believe it is a personal choice which you cannot/ should influence.
Not to contaminate a different thread O’Reilly I just oppose bad legislation and government regardless of what party is in power.
Kat- with the greatest if respect, I didn’t ask you.
Egg – with equal request you are trying to derail a very clear point made. There is no need for it. This is an open thread and we are all allowed to contribute!
Feel free to contribute of course. I addressed mine to a specific contributor. Merely explaining why I would be ignoring your answer to a question you weren’t asked.
I agree with the six pro-choice TDs.
Legislation cannot cure or address a defective Constitutional provision. Article 40.3.3 endangers the lives of a small minority of pregnant women.
The only effective legal solution is to enable the voters in Ireland in 2013 to decide whether or not to repeal Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution introduced by the wretched Eight Amendment in 1983, thirty years ago.
Relegating a pregnant woman’s right to life to mere parity with the interests of a foetus over values the foetus and under values the pregnant woman.
Parity or equality is potentially dangerous because it creates a potential legal and medical stalemate.
Religion and law in this area creates a significant risk of bad medicine.
Then why did they vote for the bill last week if it was so flawed?
They are only voting against it because they know it’ll be passed comfortably!
Stupid bloody idiots! Get this law nailed down first and then demand a referendum to expand it. Once the first step has been taken it wont take 20 years for the next one. The dopes dopes are playing into the hands of forced birthers. And to think I’ve voted for some of these people.
“Demand”? Good Luck, Chief. The word “Abortion” won’t be uttered in Dáil Éireann for 30 years. Not by anyone that matters. Being closed down tonight. Pro-abortionists out manoeuvred.
In your dreams.
Egg do u just change facts to suit u grow up u r like a child who thinks he is never wrong.
Richard- feel free to substantiate your “changing facts” slur. Or are you just talking crap?
Dont count your chickens until they are hatched from your Egg…
They’ve done their calculations, know it will pass. Their motives for voting against it are simply optics. The six of them attempting to look cohesive and presentable as a group…
They are right to vote no, because with this bill, some woman in the future is going to fall foul of the law on abortion and possibly end up in jail, so pro-choicers shouldn’t support something so draconian. Under this bill a woman who is raped, becomes pregnant and then aborts the pregnancy, will get a longer sentence than the rapist, thats how sick our government and politicians are.
If the bill was so bad and it hasn’t changed materially from last week then why did they all vote for it last week only to oppose it now. They’re just trying to get themselves into the limelight.
Because they wanted the opportunity to amend the bill.
I can see their point, and agree to a large extent, but voting against such a hard-won piece of legislation, albeit a small step, isn’t sending a good message.
I think it’d have been more productive to criticize and then abstain. Use this as a starting point, pass this law, and then begin work on repealing the disaster that is that amendment.
It’s something a lot of pro choice activists have been struggling with – but I know myself, if I was one of these TDs another woman like Michelle Harte died because she was denied an abortion before chemo, I’d blame myself. It would be the worse kind of tragedy. This will protect a tiny minority of women – but even one woman saved is worthwhile.
It’s going to pass though, opposition tds rarely have any say in whether or not bills pass. These TDs were faced with a difficulty as to how to get a pro-choice perspective across in a Dáil that seems to be devided into the we hate women loads and we distrust women quite a bit camps. The campaign to repeal the 8th amendment begins in earnest tonight and they have made a stand for the pro-choice point of view. Which they were able to do because the bill will safely pass.
Nice to see the professional protesters are lining up again. Do they actually know what they’re against this time?
Is here anything this lot actually vote for?
Yawn. The only thing being aborted here is my interest.
These guys are just nauseating. Talk about political posturing. They know damn well that if they voted for it they’d just be among the hundred and twenty or so who did so and therefore wouldn’t get any publicity about it. But now they know after the first vote that the bill will pass easily so for purely political reasons and to get a bit of cheap publicity they suddenly vote against it.
Nothing substantial has changed in the bill. So if the bill was so flawed and so against their principals then why did they not vote against it last week on the first vote. They truly make me sick and yet the left wing luvvies here on Journal will applaud them to the hilt.
The only possibility of getting the issue of a referendum to delete the 1982 anti-abortion clause in the Constitution onto the political agenda is to get it added to the agenda of the Constitutional Convention in the autumn. Neither FG nor FF will consider such a referendum despite the fact that all opinion polls show support for abortion rights beyond the X case. Pro-choicers out there need to lobby the elected members of the convention to get it at least discussed – before it falls off the agenda for another generation. Pro-choice TDs voting against the X legislation is an indulgence because the govt will have a substantial majority later but I assume people know that.
…*1983
Seamus- you skipped over the fact that the vast majority of people in Ireland regard themselves as pro-life, though yes they recognise exceptions. Only 28% are pro-choice.
I’d say most people reject both labels as they consider them to be very “activist”.
Opinion polls suggest that the overwhelming majority of people support abortion rights beyond X but that can only happen by holding a referendum to delete or amend the 1983 amendment.
Of course the only way we’ll find out if the opinion polls are correct or not is by asking the people in a referendum – I assume no democrat would oppose that.
Actually Egg, since over 80% agree with access to abortion in the cases of rape and fatal foetal abnormality, that certainly makes over 80% far more pro-choice than anti-choice considering they feel that women should have the CHOICE in these circumstances.
That reasoning ignores how the govt were forced to begin
legislating. It was the death of Savita and 20k people on the streets. Movements of people power tend to get spineless politicians doing things they dont wanna do. Now the campaign begins to get rid of 4.3.3.
They’re only opposing for oppositions sake. This legislation doesn’t stop a referendum being called in the future. Feel free to fight for such a referendum to be held but by standing against the legislation instead of simply abstaining (which I don’t think they would do if the majority in favour wasn’t so large) they’re simply contributing to the endangerment of women’s lives.
”This legislation doesn’t stop a referendum being called in the future.”
why not hold a referendum on Austerity – or whether Capitalist gamblers should face up to their losses – and not be bailed out by the State ?.
I usually do give Daly a third preference when voting but it’s sort of inspite of her. People who always have to be ‘agin’ everything are so bloody annoying and she’s the poster child for that syndrome. Maybe next time I’ll leave her off altogether.
Higgins, Daly,Wallace etc etc etc, do they really give a toss? Publicity is the name of the game! What a pity the pill was not around when this lot were conceived !
Well I for one am glad they were conceived as if one of them was not then I would have been deprived of a very wonderful beautiful niece who might I add sometimes reads up on these comments and I’m sure she would be delighted with yours!
What book do you need to study to become a socialist? is it “Politics for Dummies”?
No. It’s “How to spend other people’s money and feel morally superior while doing it”, available from “I’m Entitled To It” Press, 1964. Author- I.M.A Leech.
Have this crowd ever voted for anything? I at least thought they would support this as its one step forward.
I support the decision by these TDs – which would not have been taken lightly – and would suggest that people read the Bill carefully and then make a judgement as to whether it is a step forward for women. This legislation is happening in the wake of the sad death of Savita Halappanavar. Yet the Bill, by defining and giving legal protection to ‘unborn human life’ from the moment of implantation in the womb until delivery, will not prevent similar deaths. It will make terminations illegal during an inevitable miscarriage while there is still a foetal heartbeat. If a woman gets an infection in such circumstances, doctors will have to delay a termination until her life is at risk. This was what happened to Savita Halappanavar – and the same could happen again under this Bill. This provision also precludes abortion on grounds of fatal foetal abnormality. The ‘chilling effect’ of criminal sanction is compounded by the onerous reporting requirements on doctors and hospitals contained in the Bill. The requirement that a suicidal woman should be examined and assessed by three medics (and possibly a further three if the first three don’t all agree) – some of who may be opposed in principle to abortion – is more restrictive than at present and is likely to deter women from even asking.
It is the case that getting abortion legislation onto the statute book is a gain. But the legislation is actually regressive. Nor does Art 40.3.3 of the Constitution require such restrictive and draconian provisions and pro-choice advocates will have to call for its repeal. Yet repeal by the next government – or possibly the following one – in a context of moves to repeal 40.3.3 is highly unlikely. The divisions within FF, FG and SF on the issue suggest this. So it is going to be around for quite some time. An illusion has been created that the legislation is progressive: Kenny faced down the catholic church and the anti-abortionists; and some pro-choice advocates support this Bill. So it must be OK! If the only opponents of this Bill were those who oppose abortion in principle, would it prompt a critical assessment of the Bill? And is there not a case for consistency of position: if the Bill is regressive and should be repealed, and the Constitutional provision on which it is based should be repealed, is it not confusing to vote for that Bill today and then call for its repeal tomorrow?
And again I ask if this bill is so bad and so regressive why did these 6 politicians vote in favour of it during the first reading? If they were so opposed to it then surely they should have voted against it there. The bill has not changed substanially between then and now so why are they changing their vote now?
I’ve been red thumbed (as if I care) for raising this issue but not one person so far has been able to give me a direct answer to this question. Perhaps that’s because the only answer is that they are doing it for purely publicity related reasonings and none of their supporters want to admit that.
They know the bill will pass and therefore they are using the luxury of that to make some cheap political headlines. But for the fact that I really want the bill to pass, I’d almost take some satisifaction if it failed narrowly and exposed these people for such a hypocritical stance.
You question was answered quite directly by Dave Gaughran. They wanted the opportunity to have it amended such as the draconian 14 year sentence. Your accusations of opportunism and attention seeking are not backed by evidence.
This whole thing is a mess! Pro lifers against it, Pro choicers against it, you couldn’t make this stuff up, you can’t please all of the people all of the time but surely it’s a step in the right direction, obviously pro choice here.
I can see their point in so far as it is a flawed bill. The term of 14 yrs. for women who defy the law underlines the pure ugly mentality of the present crew in charge in the dail who seem to thrive on threats about everything like reducing the water pressure, taking payments out of pensions etc. But I think these left winger.s tactic is wrong and is political posturing at its worse. I agree with those who say that this bill, at the very least, it is one step forward .
Nice to see the independents take the same logical stance as De Valera did on the Free State Bill.
I just wanted to point out to people here that women who have been subjected to rape do not use abortions in the event that they become pregnant, the morning after pill is what is used. And it is sickening to hear people talk about abortion as if it is some kind of a magic cure for a woman who has been sexually assaulted.
Using “foetal abnormalies” as a reason for providing an abortion is morally wrong. It is just an alternative and convoluted of way justifying abortion in the case of pregnancies where there is a risk of a foetus/unborn child (take your pick) of having a disability or special needs.
Selective elimination of pregnancies of those with “undesirable” genetics adds a layer of immorality to the complex issue of abortion. It is essentially deciding whose life is unworthy of life. It is eugenics, some people here who know their history will know who else was a fan of eugenics and I am not referring to Charles Darwin.
Like any contraceptive, the emergency contraceptive has a failure rate, rape survivors are traumatised,do you expect every one of them to be mentally altogether enough to manage to get emergency contraception? Particularly in the case of a child who may not have a clue about emergency contraception. Abortion does not make the rape go away but it certainly gives the woman or girl back control over her own body and lets her stop her rapist’s offspring growing inside her. Its FATAL foetal abnormalities, this is about foetuses that are incompatible with life and will not survive and is nothing to do with non life threatening disabilities so stop scaremongering.
That is BS Kelly, I can tell you from personal experience that the one of the first things a woman does after a sexual assault no matter how “mentally together” we are is get emergency contraception, usually before we get screened for any thing we may have contracted. Also more women than you think have chosen to raise her ‘rapist’s offspring’ or are you going to judge them too?
You may have, but you certainly don’t speak for all survivors. Many of them remain in denial or refuse to name their experience as rape.
And women who choose to continue a pregnancy should be supported to do so. But rape removes control over someone’s body – it’s basically taking away their power to make their own decisions. Should the state really reinforce the rapist’s message that you have no control over your body?
I agree with the six pro-choice TD’s. 19 TD’s supported an amendment to allow women with foetal abnormalities to have an abortion in Ireland (the 19 including the Labour Party’s Clare TD Michael MacNamara in circumstances which remain confused at the time of writing; Labour party whip Emmett Stagg claims MacNamara “made a a mistake”; but RTE political correspondent David McCullagh has reported on RTE’s Morning Ireland that the Clare TD’s “body language” afterwards, when he was surrounded by panicked party colleagues, indicated an opposite interpretation).
Regarding foetal abnormalities Kelly, you argue that it only applies to ones that one deems fatal which I can accept. But what about the recent revelations that Labour TDs want to further “liberalize” abortion laws once the Bill has passed?
have your say