We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
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.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
A DEMOCRATIC DRIVE to make the right to abortion the law of the land failed in the US Senate on Wednesday after Republicans refused to allow a vote on the deeply polarizing issue.
The House-passed Women’s Health Protection Act would have created a federal statute ensuring access to terminations for patients nationwide — but all 50 Republicans and one of the 50 Democrats voted not to consider the legislation.
The vote was called last week by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer after a leaked draft decision signalled the Supreme Court’s readiness to overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade decision.
It’s chances of passing were considered slim to none, given the blocking power of Republicans in an evenly divided 100-seat Senate where key legislation almost always faces a 60-vote threshold.
Republican-controlled states have taken steps to restrict abortion rights in recent months, given that overturning Roe v Wade would give states the ability to make their own laws on abortion.
Top congressional Democrat Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives, reiterated her outrage about the court’s upcoming likely decision, telling CBS News on Sunday that “the court has slapped women in the face in terms of disrespect for their judgments about the size and timing of their families.”
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said “we will never give in” to Republican efforts to roll back abortion rights protections.
“We are half-citizens under this ruling,” she told CNN, referring to the draft opinion. “And if this is put into law, it changes the foundation of America.”
Several conservative states are already shifting.
The southern state of Mississippi will ban abortion except in cases of rape or incest, or danger to the life of the mother, Republican Governor Tate Reeves told NBC Sunday.
But looking forward, “we must prove that being pro-life is not just about anti-abortion,” Reeves said, by making sure expectant mothers and newborns have the resources they need.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said the Roe decision has sown division for decades because it “created a constitutional right that doesn’t exist in the written constitution.”
Now, he told Fox News, “finally elected officials have a say about life and the conditions of an abortion. I think that’s the way it should be.”
According to a poll released Friday by the Pew Research Center, about 61% of Americans believe abortion should remain legal in all or most circumstances.
But, as with so many other social issues, the gap between Democrats and Republicans is wide, and growing wider. Eight in 10 Democrats support abortion rights in all or most cases, more than double the 38% of Republicans who do, Pew said.
More transparent and open election process.
It shouldn’t be a retirement home for politicians.
I don’t like the idea of gender quotas. You shouldn’t be nominated to a position just because you are a man or a woman. It should be based on merit.
Sounds like a good start to me. Attractive in that it’s ready to go and doesn’t require another referendum.
And any changes that would be of benefit and that would require a referendum can still happen at some point in the future.
Seems to be some reasonable suggestions in that bill. Would also like to see their suggestion re salaries & lump sums done in the Dail as well. Will be interesting to see what Kenny does now he has lost his pet referendum.
More importantly, how am I only realising now that Micheal Martin is the spit of Mr Burns from the Simpsons?
We should just abolish it… Oh wait tried that and 61% didn’t even bother their arse voting and now they all have opinions that they want to share
@Stehen, exactly they will all have an opinion now. But couldn’t bother their rear end to vote. Typical Irish, Reform, here we go again waffle and more waffle.
You’re completely missing the point. The people have voted NOT to abolish it. So you saying “we should just abolish it” and then blaming the low turnout is irrelevant.
That you were taken in by the misleading arguments of the government is unfortunate.
Or conversely only 18% of the electorate voted to make the biggest change to our constitution ever. It depends how you look at it.
I wasn’t taken in by the governments argument. I have for years wanted it abolished as I never saw the point of its undemocratic existence. It was like the House of Lords for the Irish. Eamon Coghlan doing star jumps, Norris ranting about fannies and Leyden telling us all Hitler and Mussolini were great is all I ever seen from the Seanad. It’s also spawned Ronan Mullen which is a war crime
@Adam, how is it irrelevant that only a small fraction went out and voted to keep a house of well fed academics and politicians who didn’t get elected. If I am not mistaken it was 1951 the last time any sort of reform was implemented in the Seanad.
Voting, should be made compulsory, and a fine imposed if you do not vote. That is a must in this apathetic nation of ours, that allowed gangsters to rule this country for 75 years.
Adam, there was a lot of misinformation coming from the No camp ,like for example the so called power grab being one.
Plenty of misinformation came from the yes camp as well seamus. €20 million savings my arse. See the FG referendum director tried to inflate that claim to €25 million on the Friday as well.
@Kerry, true misinformation came from both sides cant argue with that one. However, FG were never 100% behind the yes vote. Kenny refused to debate with Michael Martin was not a good sign. There was blatant media bias in favour of a no vote. Furthermore a lot of people who did vote no, did so as a protest vote..There was an opportunity there to get rid of a day care centre for Well fed academics and failed politicians. Absolutely embarrassing
Couldn’t agree more. All this infantile celebrating on an issue no one gives a toss about. Less than 40% voted by a majority of a mere 40,000. Absolute eejitry
49 ate elected. 6 by two constituencies of university graduates and 43 by an electoral college of county councillors and tds and senators, the majority of whom are directly elected. Same ad the French senate.
Unfortunately it will probably take another referendum to make the needed changes. At least this time I hope the govt will take the time to make a compelling argument to change the constitution other than ‘it’ll save €20M’
It says in the article that it won’t require another referendum.
Yeah, Rocky, but the Taoiseach still gets to nominate over a sixth of them.
The Quinn Zappone bill would take the reform close to the limit of what is possible without an amendment to the constitution and that is a good thing. The Seanad election could be held on the same day as the Dail election but it has to be by postal ballot. I think you could oblige the Taoiseach to nominate certain types of people… I said elsewhere non residents… to avoid political cronies and such and maybe ensure emigrants and other non resident citizens are represented. Not perfect but better than what is there now.
We already have a chamber elected by all eligible voters. It’s called the Dail. Why the need for duplication. Doesn’t gender quota ignore democracy ? Not impressed with these proposals. At best they’re cosmetic window dressing
I think if they put in bean bags instead of chairs that would be start
Family members of sitting TD’s should be banned from it in the interests of openness.
Running for the Dail and failing to get elected should also bring a automatic disqualification.
Members should have a good track record in a productive industry.
Knock it down or sack the lot of them.
We may wait until the next election because these blue shirt idiots aren’t capable of doing it
What’s the matter Ciaran? Referendum result wasn’t to your satisfaction? The people have spoken even if you didn’t hear them.
How ironic, that the biggest fascists in our history were in fact Fianna Fail.
I think no-body is capable of doing it. Read this thread – everyone has an opinion, few are the same.
Now that we’re stuck with the yoke it needs to become more democratic and open for all voters. Election to be held same day as GE. Candidates can run for one or the other, not both. Half the number of seats because there’s no need for 60 of them . No more using the upper house as a dumping ground for the unelectable.
If we have seaned election on the same day as a GE then chances are you’ll have the same party in both houses. Have a seanad election half way through the dails term – that way if people are unhappy, they can vote for change halfway through. Although that could lead to an american style system where parties deliberately block bills for the sake of it.
John, therein lies the biggest problem. It was all well and good to vote for reform- it’s a whole other thing to decide (and agree!) what that actually means and then implement it. Throw in the fact that by next week, and certainly post-Budget, most eyes will have moved on from Seanad reform and we have a very serious problem. All of a sudden, it looks like Ireland voted for the status quo. Perhaps this is why no one put forward and debated the proposed reform? If they had, people might have realized just how difficult this proposed reform will be. True reform that creates a second house, subordinate but independent to the Dail where something is achieved which could not be achieved in the Dail, is going to be really, really tough- and maybe impossible. That’s not to say that some reform isn’t possible (expanding the franchise will be easy enough) but reforming the Seanad so that it actually adds value and doesn’t just replicate what the Dail does, may be impossible.
Proposal – no party members can stand for the Seanad.
Strictly non-aligned as far as that is possible, ergo no whip
Or rotate representation with, say, 1/3 of seats going up for re-election every two/three years. That’s common in many upper houses.
One independent person from each county elected by the people of that county for a three year term. €900 per week after deductions & vouched expenses. Give them a bit of bite & away we go…..EASY!
We don’t need more local representatives at national level. What we need are politicians elected at a national level to deal with national issues. If that means a party list system, so be it. TDs shouldn’t be looking into potholes.
Unfortunately the Constitutional convention decided that our PR-STV multi-seat constituency electoral system doesn’t need to be changed so there’s no fear of any TD’s having much interest in national issues anytime soon.
It’s the allowing everybody in the country and our ex-pats to vote that seems silly to me. If the recent referendums etc… Have proven anything it’s that most people are too lazy or stupid to care about democracy. Allow only people with a degree or even a masters to vote and remove councilors from being allowed to vote. The need for a debate every time a petition gets 1,000 signatures will lead to an awful lot of debating about cats stuck in trees. Also the 50:50 rule is nonsense if we are going that far then we should have an exact division along racial, religious, sexual orientation and whether people like or dislike jaffa cakes lines.
I know a lot of very clever people without degrees, and a lot of stupid people with degrees. I have a feeling you fit in the second category, but as I don’t know you I’ll withhold judgement.
You’d be wrong, but you’re probably used to that. Incidentally I did not find the voting papers confusing… :-P What I should have elaborated more is that we need a minimum standard to be allowed to vote for certain things. Our recent elections are knee jerk nonsense. For example I’ll bet good money the majority of the people who voted no for this referendum did so based on saving 20 million which is a nonsense reason to get rid of the seanad.
Universal sufferage for 70% of the seats, elected senators to elect remaining 30% as independents from the broader community, business, health education, social, community,sport. Power to block and introduce laws. Also more power the president to dismiss a TD or senator, or government. No bills to be signed by The President unless passed in both houses. Thus avoiding a repeat is bank bailout or similar by ministers or taoiseach. Set salary for TDs and senators to X times the national industrial wage ministers salary to be Y times national wage. Travel public transport, Bus, Train, Ryanair/Aerlingus, ect, vouched expenses. Set allowance for expenses. Exceed the allowance and it’s not paid. Close TDs clinics.
How can it be an upper house if the salary is only half that of a TD.. should be the other way around.. pay the Senators more than the TDs and increase there input and responsibility ie to supervise the Dail..
Lets start off with saving money on the Seanad by kicking out all who said Yes, cut there pension to the average weekly pension. Also do the same with up to four of the senior figures from each party.
The next referendum should be allowing Irish from abroad to vote,but only those who have left in the last 10 years.
All members of the Seanad should have a free and privet vote.
Why oh why cant we have an upper house made up of 13 or 15 of our brightest business brains with no political affiliation to decide whats good or not coming from the dail for the country.an odd number so no split decisions were its a straight yes or no
What business people have no political affiliation?
Fergal quinn.michael oleary for example.im sure theres more
Eh, wouldn’t most non-retired businesspeople would be too busy running their businesses?
Ireland is a democracy. Not a business, why should ‘business brains’ have a final say over legislation? Ridiculously stupid idea.
Ehh they dont need to sit fulltime does the present seanad sit fulltime
We need to enact the 7th amendment allowing all 3rd level graduates to vote & no political appointees.
I read three proposals of reform online last week, supposedly written by Kathy Sinnott and I find myself inclined to agree in part:
1. Eliminate all the existing panels (including the Taioseach’s and the university panels. replace them with panels that match the current major cabinet portfolios…. Health panel, Education and Science panel, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries panel, etc. These senators will then have the experience and commitment in specific areas to keep the ministers accountable, advised and in check.
2. Elect senators on the same day as TDs
3. Allow everyone qualified to vote in Dail elections to register to elect in 2 or possibly 3 panels. For example a farmer with children might want to vote for the senators on the agriculture panel, the health panel and the education panel. This way the electorate is self selecting. The people who are interested and generally knowledgeable in an area make up the electorate in that area.
I’d be wary of using the geographical constituencies that some people are suggesting because we’ll end up in the same situation that we have with TDs: Senators will be expected to campaign on and deal with local issues.
Using the the panels as vocational/occupational constituencies, like the Bill suggests, means candidates would have to campaign nationally on the issues relevant to their panel, which takes the local politics out of it. It’s still not perfect, because the panels are based on Ireland in the 1930s, but it’s better than the current system, particularly when anyone can vote in the elections.
I hope that this Bill, and Professor Crown’s Bill, are used at least as starting points for the discussion on reform. The electorate has decided to keep the Seanad, it’s up to our politicians to make sure it, and the rest of our Oireachtas, is fit for purpose.
Have an election which is 2 years before the general election. Allow the term to run for 4 years. Allow only a certain few from political parties to apply. Have no cronies elected by the Taoiseach. That’s a start.
REFORM ? Give me a break ….10 reports have already been published !!
10 initiatives gathering dust and cobwebs …. …..
Return to business -as-usual will be the order of the day.
This isn’t just a report, it’s an actual bill, which *is* progress.
First thing is get rid of the 11 taosaich nominees
Elect all 60 directly by the people on the same day as the local and European elections and allow office to change every 5 yrs only.
No Taoiseach selections or panels. The 60 could be split one per constituency (43 if I remember correctly) plus 17 split among the bigger constituencies ! Or you could have a list system of people from all backgrounds based on provinces and a straight vote 15 each.
Either way scrutiny of laws, ministerial orders, public appointments and investigations inquiry style would make them more relevant !
I think one directly elected member form each constituency with no party affiliations. A three year term and a pay rate of the average industrial wage. I think they should have a bit more power to be able to keep the government in check. I think that way you might get the sort of people who would want to do the job for the right reasons.
Directly elected senators could be one way of reform also. people who are not out of touch with the people.Delighted that the Senad is being kept. We do need two houses one to keep an eye on the other.The senad should be given more legislative powers.
1 senator per constituency directly elected at same time as Dail elections
Seamus ‘ wait until after the dail election. When the parties agree on their programme for government hold the Senate election, and one to endorse the P for G. This would give the government a mandate from the people and the senate guidance . at present no government has or has a mandate from the people, only a mismatch of policies from different parties. If you voted FG you voted for one thing if you voted for labour you voted for something else.
Colin C – should. be a green. thumb,sorry!
Keep the panels but require suitable qualifications/experience from the candidates and make them apolitical. Universal suffrage for the election and let the Taoiseach nominate those selected by the people.
No constitutional change needed for that as far as I can see.
That would be unconstitutional as far as I know. You can’t restrict the right to run for the Oireachtas. Which is damn right.
We already have restrictions based on age written into the constitution and if I’m not mistaken the law adds restrictions based on your financial status (can’t be bankrupt)
Anyway the constitution states the requirements for standing for the Dail.
Article 18 which deals with the Seanad states in section 7
‘Seanad Éireann to be elected from panels of candidates, five panels of candidates shall be formed in the manner provided by law containing respectively the names of persons having knowledge and practical experience of the following interests and services, namely:–’
So we determine by law the requirements and away you go…
I,m just a little disappointed we did not take the chance to get rid of 60 politicians, my entire life I have heard nothing but complaining about pay, expenses etc etc. Here was a chance of real reform 60 redundancies in Leinster House now that would be a shock to Irish politics.
I totally agree with your comments,Shane.
Some reasonable proposals here although there are others than I wouldn’t approve of. The point is that now that we are keeping the Seanad we need to have a debate on what it should be. Too many people here just want it to block everything the government does because they aren’t supporters of the current government. That isn’t a rational basis for debate.
The US example of two equally important houses is risky in that we could end up with gridlock as currently exists in the US. Could you imagine this government if FF had a majority in a powerful Seanad? We know they would block everything for the sake of it. A small country like Ireland couldn’t risk this as if the financial markets perceived that the Government couldn’t enact its legislation they would be wary of lending to us. The US gets away with this because it’s too big and too important to the world economy.
In most other countries where they have two houses the Upper House is very similar to the Seanad with limited powers. So clearly the Seanad can have an expanded role but that role has to remain subservient to the Dail which is where the real reform needs to take place.
My ideal changes :
* Scrap the UNI panels and Taoiseach’s nominees….
* Reform and Update the Vocational Panels.
* Elect the Panels from a National Franchise (ie the Dail) as well as emigrants and the Northern Irish, with each voter choosing which panel they wish to vote for. This would help minority parties and independents, as it means “party” voters can’t vote the party in every panel.
I’d like to hear from some of the others besides those 3 or 4 who’ve been in the limelight these past few days
The Quinn-Zappone Bill is probably a decent bit of legislation – bar the 50:50 gender quotas. There’s no point in giving me or anyone else a vote in the Seanad and then effectively restricting who they can elect.
Get rid of that, and it’s a worthwhile first step.
A referendum should ideally scrap the 3rd-level seats and the Taoiseach’s nominees. And the electorate be expanded to encompass all Irish-born overseas and Northern Irish. Though – as the article points out – that could be a daunting logistical exercise….
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say