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.
THE IRISH GOVERNMENT will publish draft legislation to allow abortion within the terms of the X Case next month – and hopes to have it in place by July.
Irish representatives at a Council of Europe meeting in Strasbourg have presented a timetable under which the legislation, which responds to the European Court of Human Rights ruling in the A, B and C case, will be in place by this summer.
A motion passed at the Committee of Ministers – which includes representatives from Ireland and the 46 other countries which have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights – says the general scheme of the legislation will be published in April.
This refers to the drafts ‘heads of Bill’, which will be followed by the full text of the legislation – which will be progressed through the Oireachtas so that it would be enacted “by the end of July”.
The legislation is currently being drafted after a week of hearings by the Oireachtas health committee, where medical and legal experts – as well as pro-life and pro-choice advocates – offered their input on how the Government should respond to the A, B and C ruling.
In that case, the European Court of Human Rights – which forms part of the Council of Europe – ruled that the government had failed to provide an accessible and effective procedure by which it could be determined whether a woman qualified for an abortion within the terms of the constitution.
The Council of Europe committee said it “noted with satisfaction” Ireland’s decision to implement the ruling using a combination of legislation and regulations.
In advance of this week’s meeting, the last submission by the Irish government – submitted in mid-February - had not contained any prospective timetable for a government response.
It affirmed, however, that the draft regulations to give effect to the new abortion system would be published at the same time as the full legislation.
So 21 years later they tell the Council of Europe when they plan to put legislation place before the people of this country who have voted on this issue twice?
I never voted on abortion. Probably never will.
majority did
Eat that Iona Institute! :-)
Sad times
Sad indeed Simon, that it’s taken a generation to enact legislation that protects the life and mental health of women.
Not before time.
In your face Youth Defence & Iona Institute! Serious, though. It’s not before time.
Can I ask, though, if the legislation is passed to allow abortion in accordance with the X case, what will YD & II do? I mean will they get violent? I seen a post from them today on Twitter where they had a picture of a woman in the cross-hair of a gun, with the caption, “You you still be pro-choice if you were the one being targeted”
It’s actually frightening, the lengths these people will go to.
Here’s the link.
Hopefully a new pope getting elected will keep them busy for a while.
I suppose I’m wasting my time seeking a rational debate with someone from YD or Iona…. :-(
I suppose you consider yourself so enlightened……
Seen that and don’t like it. What desperate lengths will they go to? I think they May go a bit far.
Zoe,
I see myself as a person, who as a man, will never have to make this decision, I would rather let the woman choose? What is so bad with that? Do you honestly think women will get mass abortions because of this? If so, you have very little faith in Women, and that in itself is frightening. Regardless if this passes or not, women will still get an abortion if they want it, and with that in mind, I think that it’s morally wrong that we ship this issue to the UK.
After what happened with Gabrielle Giffords in the US you would have hoped they would have at least had the common sense not to pull a stunt like that ad campaign.
So much for YD being for every life anyway, not sure how they expect to be taken seriously when they produce nonsense like that.
Ive said it before and I’ll say it again, YD are the best recruitment tool the pro-choice movement could have. Between the robo calls, appalling posters they had no image rights for, yer man with the crucifix at the protest and now an image using crosshairs, sometimes I think whoever is doing their PR is a twisted secretly pro-choice genius.
Isn’t this very close to the time the Dail closes for their summer holidays? Call me cynical but what’s the betting it will be delayed until after the recess?
Heads of bill and full draft legislation next month. Hopefully that should give them ample opportunity bettween April and July to not f*** it up
Termination for fatal foetal abnormalities needs to be addressed too.
F**ck you if you think parents with children with disabilities will put up with that. I am proud if my child and worry the day when people like you come out and start sprouting remarks like that.
Although you did say fatal, should of read your comment fully :( sorry
fatal, fatal feotal abnormalities, as in the child won’t live to birth or for not long after.
And again it’s a choice, no one will be forced to abort a child who will be born with a disability,
Well not everyone wants to bring a disabled child into the world. Abortion isn’t about terminating children you already have…
This is what I have a problem with, comments like these.
Yes, I fully agree Martin.
My friend has a disabled child, & while it is not easy for her, – she is glad she has that child.
Her child has brought huge happiness & fulfillment, into her life.
As you say comments like the above, are very hurtful.
Abortion is not always a black & white issue, about ‘Choice’ and ‘Rights’
There are other rights that need to be considered, like the rights of the unborn child.
Martin, glad you finally read my post properly.
Zoe, when a foetus goes full term and is born, it has rights but when its in the womb, it doesnt have any rights that supercede those of the woman its living off, no more than someone has the right to use my body cos they will die without it.
On the issue you both raised, not every woman or couple is prepared to raise a disabled baby and you cannot force them to.
And Zoe, YOUR friend wanted to have that child. That was their choice. You cannot make that decision for any other woman.
Real mature. Ok martin, lets do it your way. Lets force women to have babies they dont want to be pregnant with or give birth to or raise. Now Martin, F*ck you and lets leave desperate women to be f*cked around too.
And these are thousands of kids in care in this country, both disabled and able bodied. If youre so pro these kids, adopt them instead of trying to force women to have kids they dont want.
So you agree with aborting babies with minor defects, they should be pure in an aryan way. This is what you are saying?
Unfortunately, even if a woman who feels she cannot care for a disabled child continues the pregnancy and surrenders the child for adoption, what chance does that child have?
As disgraceful as it is, adoptive parents get the option to reject special needs kids, and they often do.
http://www.thelaboroflove.com/articles/adopting-a-child-with-special-needs
(Surely if they want a child they should take what they get? As a woman carrying a baby does?)
These kids have it hard enough, until they aren’t consistently left by the wayside adoption isn’t always their best option.
Martin, Id love if all pregnancies were welcome by the pregnant woman but many arent for whatever reason and no one can carry those pregnancies to term for those women who do not want them.
Can I ask you what the alternative is? If a woman wants an abortion for a reason that you dont agree with, should you be allowed to lock them up till they have these babies? Will you take all these unwanted babies in?
If they want to destroy a child with a disability, yes. My question is how far does it take for you to go before abortion becomes the wrong decision?
It might not be the right decision in my mind or a decision that saddens me but why should that influence a pregnant woman? Why should I get to determine her path in life?
A parent cant be forced to give an organ to their born child, why should a woman be forced to give over her body to the unborn?
My missus had an abortion a few years back because she had ovarian cancer. She put her life and her health and medical treatment before the foetus. It was HER decision to make.
If youre not prepared to adopt all those disabled kids in care Martin, you need to keep quiet. No one likes a hypocrite.
Hang on, you would gladly lock a woman up and force her to continue the pregnancy against her will?
No woman has any great desire to experience an abortion, but some end up in situations where it is the option they feel is best for them, it’s her body and the foetus does not have permission to be there, nor do its rights trump hers.
If she wants to continue the pregnancy more power to her, and she should get all the support she needs, but it’s not my job to control her, and it’s not yours either.
Here is a fantastic site that was recommend to me few days ago by someone on here.. Is this what the future is in America ?!?!
When abortion is introduced into a country eventually their values change…
What they would once have been horrified at now they consider…
://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/01/after-birth-abortions-and-infanticide-where-does-it-end/
@martin if a woman wants to terminate a foetus that should be her choice, regardless of whether the child is able bodied or not. If a foetus cannot survive outside the womb, how can it deserve rights?
How can you justify forcing women to have a child they don’t want or cannot look after? How could aborting a foetus be a worse decision that?
Bridget, do you think forcing women to have babies is more humane?
That article was a debate on ethics. It wasnt suggesting that newborns be killed.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy so ‘After-birth abortions’ is not even an actual term. Theres no such thing.
Absoutly tommy, it’s much more humane for the unborn anyway…
I said yes I would if possible, so I’m not a hypocrite.
I’m sorry about your wife .
My argument is about the designer baby thrill, that seems to crop up in these chats. I don’t believe women should have the right to abort if there is a defect in a child. I believe this is the part where humanity disappears and we, if allow this, become monsters.
Yes
So the born dont matter then Bridget?
We dont need to be humane to the born, just the unborn.
Once the unborn are born, then they dont matter.
Any chance youre in the process of adopting the 5000 kids in care in this country or did you only care about them when they were in the womb?
You’d swear people didnt realise sex can lead to pregnancy!
Martin, I completely see your point, I really do but should these women be forced to remain pregnant, give birth and look after kids they dont want or should we force them to give birth and put them into care homes?
We are men so we are lucky. We will NEVER be pregnant so we will NEVER have an unwanted foetus in us! We will never have to make that decision.
Yes the “born” count very much.. Silly thing to say really,
Yes We do foster care so We try to do our bit to help as much as possible
Risteard, sex isnt what leads to fatal fetal abnormalities. Condoms split, the pill, coil, injections etc are not 100% effective. Women get pregnant but they are not breeding cattle and should never be forced to give themselves up for a foetus for 9 months and to go through labour. THATS inhumane.
Obviously not enough Bridget because there are thousands in care and you want to add to that.
You want to force women into having babies they dont want.
I just don’t believe anyone should have the power to decide who has the right to life and who does not..
I just find it hilarious that the function of sex is reproduction and we’re cheating nature.
Suppose we do the same with nutrition and the whole stomach stapling.
Suppose if ye look at medicine, if we didnt have half of it, the world population wouldnt be so out of control, we’d not be turning our eco-system into something our species wont survive in in a few hundred years.
Well they do Bridget. Those who give birth get to decide if and when that happens.
Risteard, Do you want contraception, hormones, desire and sex drives banned?
Should people only have sex for reproduction? Sounds like catholic nonsense to me.
People have sex and some get pregnant. Some dont want to be so they deserve options.
Im athiest.
I just think its funny how we want accountability in our society but not in our personal lives.
I agree with a few of your points but many women who have abortions are taking responsibility for their actions. They have abortions instead of bringing another unwanted child into the world.
Im not a woman so I will never know how all this feels, Im just trying to understand and empathize with those who feel abortion is the option they want to go with.
@ Martin Malone, calm yourself, it’s fatal foetal abnormalities that people are talking about, no one is saying anything about aborting for minor disabilities.
of course parents should have right to abort if child is going to be mentally disabled. why make a life that suffers and destroys the life of the parent too. of course it should be an option to take it or leave it. Personally and go ahead and hate me for being honest but if my parents was pregnant with child that was deformed we would both be of the same opinion that we cant have it ruin so many lives. not selfish its merciful
You’re assuming your standard of life is the correct one. Who is to say the life of a person with a disability is of a less standard, although it may be of an alternative standard.
The control came before the foetus. It didn’t just sneak in there.
It is a human being. A human on life support has rights, yet they cannot live without the machine and another person setting the dials.
In the US, it refers to an abortion that didn’t quite work and the ‘baby’ ( foetus) comes out alive and is then killed. ” after birth abortion “sounds better?
I would be very concerned about some of the comments above.
- regarding the possible termination of a pregnancy where there is a disability involved.
A disabled person, (regardless of the nature of their disability) has the right to be born.
I would be concerned if Legislation, could lead to the death of even ONE disabled unborn child.
That would definetly be a human rights issue.
It took long enough to get this far!
This better not be some cop-out, watered down form of legislation either. The risk of suicide due to pregnancy has to be addressed and included under the umbrella of “threat to the life of the mother”.
They haven’t done it yet and the substance of the legislation has yet to be published, they still have time to f it up
Brilliant news but i will believe it when it’s signed into law. We still need to keep the pressure up on the Government.
Why is it taking so long….seems the blue shirts want the bye election out of the way in Meath. Anyway it’s good news that finally they will legislate for X. Up yer %%%% UD
Lets just hope they get it rite that would be nice for a change
There is a lot of confusion on this issue. The legislation required by “our masters” is just to clarify the legal situation and not necessarily to provide for legal abortions in Ireland under various circumstances. They have not yet assumed the right to tell us to legislate to allow abortion though there is widespread obfuscation on that fact. Various TDs would sooner give that impression rather than sacrificing some votes by making their own wishes clear.
If the Labour Party wants abortion on demand I wish they would admit it and not hide behind other institutions or the psychiatric profession to get their way by stealth. They take us for ignorant fools. In fact very few of our public representatives wants to make the obvious observation that the Irish people do not want abortion on demand since that would require an entirely different approach to the present situation. The planned approach, which is to sleep-walk towards abortion on demand via a medico-psychiatric-legal contrivance is the kind of messing which will please no one in the end – pro OR anti.
Lets have a referendum for Abortion on demand and find out what the public think once and for all. My vote would be yes.
Pat, what do you suggest as an alternative to abortion?
What should we do whne women want abortions or when women travel for abortions? Should we lock them up and force them to maintain a pregnancy and force them to go through labour and give birth?
@tommy c, it does not matter what I want, what matters is that the democratic will of the people is not subverted by some slithery parliamentary obfuscation designed to fool us – think Bank Guarantee, Croke Park II, NAMA, Mileage Expenses to holiday homes in Kerry and you will be reminded of what passes for a good days democracy in action these days…..
Pat we voted for abortion TWICE!!! 4000 women have to travel for an abortion which is provided in nearly every other EU country for their women. Why is it legal to force women to remain pregnant because they cant afford to travel for abortions?
@Pat We have had two referendums and the people voted both times for abortion legislation to include a suicide risk so I the that’s democracy.
Why are the pro lifers red thumbing this? Are they afraid what the result would be? Legislation is coming and it’s only the start.
Actually we didn’t vote for abortion twice. Stop making things up. We voted to maintain the status quo.
First time out the options were legislate for abortion or maintain the status quo. We voted to maintain the status quo.
Second time, the option was to criminalise abortion or maintain the status quo. Again, We voted to maintain the status quo.
Read up on it and get back to me.
Perhaps YOU should consider reading up on it. And consider, in future, checking your facts first :)
We voted for restrictive abortion to include a suicide risk but we should be voting on abortion on demand.
And, for divilment, I’ll add some proof:
The proposed 12th amendment (1992 referendum):
http://193.178.1.79/1992/en/act/pub/0022/sec0001.html
The proposed 25th amendment (2002 referendum):
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2001/2401/b2401.pdf
No, we didn’t vote for abortion. We voted to maintain the status quo. There is a BIG difference.
Yes Sakipol, we voted to allow termination when a woman’s life was at risk because of her pregnancy.
As we voted not to exclude suicide as a risk, constitutionally it must be considered so, as the Supreme Court ruled in X.
As our legislation makes no provision for this and only criminalises abortion, it must be clarified so that women who need the service know that they can access it, here. And medical professionals do not feel the “chilling effect” and can act freely to work towards the best possible outcome for the woman without trying to balance her life against a potential one.
Sigh!
@ShantiOm Whether you like it or not, the facts are as follows:
In 1992, the people voted against proposed legislation for limited abortion.
In 2002, the people voted against proposed legislation criminalising abortion.
It is disingenuous, at best, to construe these referenda as people having voted in favour of any form of abortion. This is patently untrue. People voted to preserve the status quo, which in most voters’ minds was a situation where there was no abortion.
I’m not arguing the rights or the wrongs of this, here or now. I am merely taking umbrage at historical fact being twisted and warped into an untruth to push an agenda.
“It is disingenuous, at best, to construe these referenda as people having voted in favour of any form of abortion. This is patently untrue. People voted to preserve the status quo, which in most voters’ minds was a situation where there was no abortion. ”
Why did we have the referendum in ’92? Because of the X Case, where the Supreme Court ruled that a woman had a right to an abortion if she was suicidal as a result of her pregnancy. The people were asked whether suicide should be excluded as a legitimate grounds for abortion. The people said no.
The people were also asked should we have access to information on abortion clinics overseas, and should women be permitted travel to access the service – on both of these things the people voted yes.
In 2002 we were asked to remove the suicide clause again, and legislation would have been enacted criminalising abortion, but the people rejected that too.
The only person being disingenuous around here is you Sakipol. Nice ignoring the travel and info part of ’92s referendum btw..
The problem had always been the wording, it was never going to suit everyone… You see it your way and think that was why it was voted in while. Other see it their way etc..
I cannot understand why you would think doctors are afraid To do their duty, To save the life if the mother. There was over 30+ life saving treatments done last yr and I don’t think any doctor hesitated over fear of prosecution..
We oppose legislation that includes suicide because none of our top perinatal doctors said at recent hearing , abortion was not the answer..
By reading some of the comments over recent days it seems most on here want abortion on “demand” for any trivial reason eg not ready to be
Right, then please, explain why you did not vote to exclude suicide as a valid ground for abortion on either occasion? If you are alright with abortions being carried out when the mothers life is at risk due to the pregnancy (Or were you claiming abortion was never necessary until it was proven otherwise recently? And if you watched those hearings how come you didn’t hear any of the doctors speak of the chilling effect? You seem to have only caught the highlights on Lifesite Bridget..)
And please, explain why the majority voted for women to be permitted have abortions elsewhere (travel and information) if they were voting from an anti choice viewpoint?
I have been very patient Bridget, I’ve lost track of how many times I have asked you to explain this and you have declined.. I notice Sakipol failed to engage with the point about travel and information too.
Your twisting of words doesn’t really work when that part of the referendum is taken into account.
Don’t know what happened there regarding post, some missing to..
Santi
I have as I said before watched it, with much interest …
Same as i said before the difference is in the INTENSIONAL… A BIG difference..
I did see the doctors talk but I also heard that when a woman’s life is in danger then they are not afraid to act, did you hear that??
there have been over 30 such life saving treatments given last year..
I cannot possibly explained why other people voted the way they did and I won’t even begin to try explained..
If you can’t understand my position at this stage then what can I do??
Bridget.
I will give you an example of your “intensional” vs what our doctors do abortion shall I?
If you have an ectopic pregnancy the standard best practice is a medical abortion. It’s a life threatening pregnancy and it’s better to abort as soon as possible rather than invite the complications.
In Ireland, what is far more likely to happen is that the woman is left until the Fallopian tube is about to rupture and kill her, then they cut her open, remove the Fallopian tube, and hey, in many cases the ovary too.
I’m sorry, but that’s where your word games leads to. If the woman’s life is at risk then the risk needs to be dealt with ASAP, not wait until she almost dies (or does die).
It’s funny you claim not to speak for the other voters now Bridget, because the reason I first started asking you about this was because you were trying to claim a) an anti choice majority and b) that most of those who voted to reject those amendments was doing so for anti choice reasons.
Except if that were the case, they wouldn’t have voted for the right to travel and information too..
Our constitution will not permit abortion on demand as it stands now. I would welcome a chance to vote on repealing the 8th amendment, but unless this happens, abortion will remain extremely restricted in this country.
We will hold them to that..
When a man or boy can be forced to give up their bodies to someone who will die without their organs or blood etx, then I’ll be for women being forced to give up their bodies to a foetus.
Giving up is not the same as sharing.
So can we force adults to be hooked up to another for 9 months to ‘share’ their body?
Human centipede style?
Saw this on reddit.
“If ye like abortions, dont have one.
If ye dont like slaves, dont have one.”
When I first saw that, I lol’ed
That statement depends solely on your viewpoint. Your morals arent universal and should not be imposed in a culture that has alternative morals.
”Your morals arent universal and should not be imposed in a culture that has alternative morals.”
Exactly. Someone elses ‘No Choice’ morals should not be imposed on a woman with morals that differ to theirs.
Exactly Risteard. And the only people trying to force their morals on anyone are those who oppose letting each woman (and her partner, if involved) make the CHOICE that is right for them.
Exactly… We’re in agreement… Now to buy a slave.
Just take one! You dont need to pay!
Legislating for the X case does not permit terminations for fatal foetal abnormalities or pregnancies resulting from rape or incest or under age pregnancy, its does not allow terminations if there is not a real and substantial threat to the life of the pregnant woman at the time of making the decision and it does not allow terminations where the health and welfare of the pregnant woman are compromised by he continuation of the pregnancy.
Although Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution nominally equates the life of the mother and the interests of he foetus but the stalemate created by equality may result in practice in the interests of the foetus being preferred over those of the pregnant woman.
Although I don’t consider a foetus a human being, innocent or otherwise, if you subscribe to such a fanciful notion then logically and morally speaking the foetus cannot properly be terminated even to save the life of the pregnant woman.
Legislating for the X case will actually achieve very little advancement of the interests of pregnant women and it will still leave them in a legally inferior position. We truly live in a strange country.
Well put Peter. This is not clear cut and there is quite a bit of thinking to be done before we come up with a workable solution. There is a reason why so many western countries have not yet sorted the legal quagmire that is abortion legislation. Is it posssible that the truth emerges from the mist? Could Ireland be the first country to nail it? Maybe. With the benefit of some proper debate and ideological discussion. If anyone can do it, it might be the Irish.
Peter
Legislation for x is flawed…
Even the clinical psychologist and counsellor Fred Lowe (after his brief meeting with miss x), admitted he was not a medical practitioner and not competent to give medical opinion..
The judgment was made without the benefit of expert medical evidence… Therefor it is flawed, all the top perinatal doctors at recents hearing agreed abortion not the answer for woman with suicidal ideation
You might not believe “calling a foetus a human being, innocent or otherwise”
Chief Justice Murry said the human embryo is generally accepted as having moral qualities and a moral status..
1.. Irish constitute grants unborn the right to life..
2..Universal Declaration of human Rights UDHR, first line “recognition of the Inherent dignity…..of all members of the human family.
3.. International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. ICCPR Article 6(1) every human being has the inherent right to life
ICCPR not only protects human beings during the pre-natal period of life under paragraph 5 it protects them as holders of human rights.
Article 6(5) implicitly recognised that the right holder is the new Human
Being that had come into existence at conception…
4.. Convention on the rights of the child (CRC)
9th paragraph “The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity needs special safeguard and care including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth…
There was over 30 lifesaving treatments given last yr so I don’t believe the life of the unborn is favoured over the mother..
Morally speaking, lifesaving treatment is not the same as abortion…
Slaves are independent sentient people. A foetus is none of these. Also no one is forcing men or women to provide their organs and body systems to slaves but some feel its ok to force women to do just that for a foetus.
What is Helen McEntee’s stand in this issue?
They haven’t told her yet.
I respect all of the above comments however until this issue lands on your own door step you ha e really no idea. This is not an easy choice. We should be supporting our women and not expecting to travel in shame, guilt or secrecy to another country. The only choice is pro choice. Only a women should have the power to decide about her own body.
@ Anne, that’s the real truth of it.
Voting for the right to travel and information was not the same as voting for abortion on demand. It is self evidentially wrong to prevent someone enjoying their usual freedoms IN CASE they will do something that is not an offence, even if it would be an offence in this jurisdiction. That was only one sinister step away from having “thought police” and the Irish voters realised that. Equally, if we knew, or could know that a womans life is in danger we would not vote to prevent an abortion. Alas for the “Yes” camp, in spite of their protestations to the contrary, neither means we would / did vote for abortion on demand. I’d love even a newspaper poll to ascertain the majority view on abortion on demand: Yes/No. The outcome would be very instructive to all sides in this heated debate and I think we would accept the outcome of a vote on it.
This legislation isn’t about abortion-by-choice. The conflation between legislating for serious cases of life and death and legislation for abortion-by-choice is dishonest on both sides. The pro-choice argument goes beyond the democratic remit actually given in the last referendum and the pro-life argument which claims that this is abortion-on-demand. Indeed it is pro-life to support saving one life over losing two.
Is it that much to ask people on both sides to atop lying about the nature of the proposed legislation.
have your say