Electing conservatives oppresses Women’s rights and their dignity. Hopefully, a lesson learned by the voters in 2011.

Joe and in what way did electing labour elevate the oppression of women’s rights in this vote? Face it different party names but all the same under the surface.

Well said!

A big thanks to my colleague Gavan who put the details together and sent them on to me!
Aoife

Just ran the statistics through SPSS for whoever is curious;
Fianna Gael- Yes 0%. No 78%. absent 21%. N= 74
Sinn Fein- Yes 92%. No 0%. Absent 8%. N= 14
fianna fail- Yes 0%. No 73.7% N= 19
ULA- Yes 100%. No 0%. Absent 0% N= 5
Indie (regardless of backing etc)- Yes 47.4%. No 21.1%. Absent 31.6%. N=19
Labour- Yes 0%. No 70.6%. Absent 29.4% N= 34
Ceann Comhairle Yes 0%. No 0% Absent 100% n=1

Also Thought it might be interesting to look at the break down in the politician’s gender. So, whether the voter’s gender impacted their vote:

Male Politician- Yes 14.6%. No 61.1% Absent 24.3% N= 144
Female Politician- Yes 27.3%. No 54.5%. Absent 18.2% N= 22

Women’s outcome was slightly different from mens, the number one choice among women was to vote “No”, followed by “Yes”; the least common value was absenteeism, that was the least popular. Most popular choice was also “No” among men, but they were more likely to be absent than women. The least popular choice for a man was voting yes.

Obviously you’d have to consider the small sample of female TD’s but that’s another story.

@WaterfordHotels How would you know what is the majority? The vote hasn’t been put to the Irish people for 20 years, a lot has changed since we wrestled free from the clutches of the church. “The murderous minority” my foot, people aren’t calling for every baby to be killed on a whim without a second thought, they’re calling for legislation to be put in place so that another incident like what happened Savita Halappanavar doesn’t occur again. Where the baby has no chance to life, or where the life of the baby puts the life of the mother in danger, the life of the mother should supersede that of the baby. Mothers were all over the news in the days following Halappanavar’s death saying they had been through similar situations to Savita, the effects it had on them are permanent and scarring. I’d love for you to go and tell them that they don’t “live in the real works(sic)” , you’ll soon see who is the majority here.

wont be going to waterford hotels anytime soon . if your meant to be a advert for waterford hotels ,dont you think you have maybe put off some potential customers. heres one for you come visit waterford hotels if your anti women anti choice.

Is the the considered and official position if Waterford Hotels? Perhaps you could provide a list if the hotels in Waterford that are part of your group so they can be avoided by rational people.

It was put to the Irish people in referendum and we backed the Supreme Court in saying that women have the right to lifesaving abortion. There is nothing left to do but legislate..

Waterford hotels
Your comment is absolutely scandalous . There is NOBODY here crying out for abortion . You are right ,in a perfect world ,no baby should die , no woman should have to make that choice , but who are you or me or Kenny to dictate that decision to any woman? Until you can walk in her shoes ,it is NOT YOUR decision.

Yes, no baby should die. And no mother should die. And I should win the lottery every week. On planet earth though things aren’t as simple as wishing bad things wouldn’t happen ever to anyone. So sometimes real people have to make choices ie out of these two people one lives and one dies. Having a rule that says it always the baby that lives is illogical and ignoring reality. Which would seem to be your thing so never mind I guess….

Who exactly are you representing with a name like @Deisehotel?!? Do the rest of us in Waterford a favour and dun do gob. You’ve said enough already.

@Waterford Hotels / @Deisehotels
Excellent lesson in how not to mix business, politics and social media!

@winston. I never suggested a position you would take if there was a referendum. I was referring to your stance on Clare daly’s bill. again I suggest you have a look at your own ability to interpret.

But sure ignore my ramblings. Men have been ignoring the ‘ramblings’ of women in this country re the abortion issue for decades.
You’re not the first and you ( unfortunately) wont be the last.

That is why we are in the mess we are in.

@WaterfordHotels. Funny that you speak of the TDS acting for the majority. Even the overwhelming proportion of dislikes to your stupid comment is reflects that the majority of don’t us don’t believe that this outcome has been a “great result” unlike you.

We know who Not to vote for now (FF & FG).

So you would support a bill that was submitted to the house prior to the report of the expert board being published? Does that really make sense?

Winston
The Supreme court ruled on it already …

Labour too, don’t forget their part in this.

Fine Gael are stalling for time so they can pretend to their conservative members that they tried their hardest to stop whatever legislation they end up introducing. Labour want to try to take the kudos in the new year because they just see this as playing politics.

We are guaranteed that they will propose some nonsense legislation about just the X case being fully legislated and after that there being a board of advisers to decide on a woman’s basic rights. It’s not good enough and we need to keep on fighting and we need to truly shame Labour, FG and FF when we get to the polls next time.

@Winston, it was a stopgap bill to ensure that another tragedy doesn’t happen whilst FG/lab hum and haw over the expert group’s report. Introducing this doesn’t mean we can’t ever look at giving women more of their basic rights.

Nial Noonan . Spot on.

I don’t think ‘stop-gap’ legislation is the way out laws should be enacted… I think women deserve better

They could have proceeded as they liked and introduced more legislation based on the expert group in the new year, but until that time Clare Daly’s bill would have protected against the Savita tragedy happening again. As it stands a woman could die, as Savita did, today, tomorrow or next week.

Winston
That is why they should have voted YES, I am a woman , YES.
I have Children . YES. I have a daughter. YES.
I want health and well being. YES. I want to be allowed to Choose. YES.

Eileen, the Supreme Court ruled that when the life of the mother is in danger an abortion can be permitted. That is how the law already stands and that is reflected in the Medical Council guidelines…

Unfortunately, in the Salvita case medical practitioners deemed the life of the mother not to be at risk. That was a judgment call. Even had the x-case, which dealt with suicide, had been legislated for, the right to terminate the life of an unborn child when, in the opinion of a medical practitioner, the life of a mother wasn’t at risk, would still not have permitted an abortion.

This case has been used by the pro-life lobby to scaremonger the public into welcoming reactionary legislation that is not in keeping with the constitution, x-case decision or decision of the ECHR.

Legislation is required but not Clare Daly’s…

Joe you forgot Labour !

Winston
”that was a judgement call’ Now
you are pre empting the inquiry …
but I reckon you said it all when you said ” Legislation is required but not Clare Daly’s…”
even tho Reilly had asked for adjustments to be made to her original proposal , to which she obliged.
It is playing with lives and women’s health for the sake of politics .

@ winston, I don’t know how you derived that interpretation from the four majority judgments of the Supreme Court X case.

The health and life are part of a continuum. It is bad law to seek to distinguish between health and life. Gambling with a woman’s health can result in her death, however undesired or unintentional.

As a retired lawyer, I say take the law out of medicine. This subject is too medically complex, too variable, too unpredictable and too subject to variation in clinical judgment to be appropriate to inflexible normative treatment.

Every labour deputy hang your head in shame how ever you look at it you have betrayed the women of Ireland As someone who has marched on this issue for the last 25 years and campaigned alongside ivana I just dont know how she can stand by and watch this shower of bas***ds fudge the issue again shame on you

@Peter, the initial X-Case verdict was by a split decision and held that the threat of suicide constituted a “real and substantial risk to the life of the mother” and that in such an instance the equal right to life of the unborn child as envisaged by the 1983 Amendment could not mean an absolute equality, that in fact the rights of the child were “contingent” on the mothers right and, therefore, of lesser importance. In short, abortion became legal in Ireland by the same Constitutional provision which was designed to prevent that.

By acknowledging that the right to life of the unborn child was secondary to that of the Mother the right to an abortion on medical grounds was established and on that basis the guidelines of the Medical Council are enshrined.

Labour, FFG-FF have no shame, they still operate to church antiquated teachings. That all believe that when a woman gets married, she is still the property of her husband. Until that Mantra changes, or when we change government, we well continue to inflict to male dominated decisions with no consideration for the welfare if the women in our society.

No Labour-apologist has yet mentioned any specific issue or problem with the Daly Bill. Kathleen Lynch, Junior Minister at the Dept of Health conceded a fortnight ago that there was nothing wrong with the bill, and it was defeated in March for purely political reasons.
They only excuse given by Labour TDs and their hangers-on is a question of timing. Women have waited 20 years, and a woman has died since Labour TDs last voted against this bill. Waiting for a much delayed and a much leaked Expert Group report while pregnant women are denied clarity, security and the right to essential treatment is shameful. We all knew it would recommend legislation anyway.

@ Winston, your interpretation is arguable but I’m unconvinced. First, the ratio decidendi is very narrow. There is some partial support for your interpretation in the orbiter dicta of the late McCarthy J. But the case merely decided that a pregnant child who had expressed apparently sincere threats of suicide if forced to give birth was at real and substantial risk of death and that the interests of the foetus could not be prioritised over that of the mother. Much of the judicial reasoning is quite contrived, admittedly for the best of motives, in order to try to take out some of the damage in Article 40.3.3 in the particular case and on the particular facts presented. The judgements are a mere interpretation of the law and an uncertain basis for legislation and guidelines.

I looked at the 2009 Medical Guidelines and, as might be expected, there is a stalemate where the life of the mother and the preservation of the foetus conflict.

It would take a clinician who is a far better lawyer than I ever was to navigate safely through the law on this area. The four Supreme Court judgements are a very poor route map in a real life situation because Article 40.3.3 presents a Gordian knot.

May I say that your interpretation is arguable, may be correct, might be supported by the present Supreme Court but it is far from certain. Clinicians have enough to do in a difficult real life medical situation than trying to applying very unclear law and Medical Council Guidelines which are opaque. Dr. Boylan addressed the difficulty in his article in last Sunday’s Sunday Business Post.

I do have to disagree that any general principle of legal abortion in all life threatening situations can be derived from the four Supreme Court Judgments. The Judges are not allowed to criticise the Constitution or any provision in it, but their concern is obvious and there was a valiant attempt to undo some of the damage.

The only clean and clear legal solution is to repeal the defective Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution by Referendum of the People but this is not politically palatable. Although the People passed the Eight Amendment, it is almost 30 years later and a less simplistic view of this complex issue.

Laws which do not reflect the values and social practices of a society are unhelpful and ineffective. This is evidenced by the reality that those who can travel to the UK and the Netherlands for abortions do so. Those who are too poor or too I’ll remain victims of oppressive and out moded laws in Ireland.

Regardless of the division between medicine and the law there is not a developed society on this planet where the former does not operate within the confines of the later, and for good reason.

It will always be for the physician, in consultation with the patient, to judge what is in the best interest of a persons health… The law sets the parameters within which treatment is dispensed… And we are better-off as a society for that protection.

My argument was that Clare Daly’s bill does not benefit from the recommendations of the Savita enquiry. As such it would be prudent to wait until a more complete proposal was put forward.

In an earlier post (in reply to Eileen), I argued that legislation is required, but not Clare Daly’s…

@ Winston, the only effective medium term solution is to repeal Article 40.3.3 because it produces a logical and legal conundrum, which are life threatening in uncommon situations. I see no reason why the law is required to set parameters. It does not and cannot prevent travel abroad for abortions and therefore it only penalises those too ill or to poor to travel.

Alan Shatter in his enlightened speech last night makes it clear why legislation alone cannot address most of the iniquities.

Garret Fitzgerald, Peter Sutherland and others were right to point out inn1983 the defects in the Referendum wording in the Eight Amendment but the RC Church influenced a yes vote.

Now we know that the RC Church is not always infallible.

Winston, as I have mentioned on this site countless of times, the law in relation to termination in Ireland does not protect pregnant mothers. It is a blanket law that is only moveable depending on how brave a doctor is.
As Peter just said, remove the law. For a case study of how to deal with this issue look to Canada.

@Peter & James, I think you guys are getting a little off point. This article was about the Bill proposed by Clare Daly… It was overwhelmingly defeated in the House last night and here we are talking about Constitutional amendments as a medium term solution!

Both of you seem to suggest that the legal parameters as to when a termination of pregnancy in Ireland, even when the life of the Mother is at risk, are so in doubt that a Constitutional amendment is required to secure her safety. It is not. The parameters are quite clear and operational.

I reiterate my original point, for a third time now, that although legislation is required, the House was unanimous that Clare Daly’s proposal, without the benefit of the Savita Enquiry Report, wasn’t it.

The government have promised an alternative proposal before the Christmas recess and let’s hope they follow through.

@ Winston, In so far as the parameters are clear at all, they are life threatening and threatening to the health of a small number of pregnant women. The majority of Obstetricians in Ireland deny that there is clarity in all cases. Your point about the Dail rejection of Clair Daly’s Bill ignores that it was a simple operation of the party whip system.

It is almost 30 years since Article 40.3.3 which was passed in different times in a very unhealthy climate. It is time to allow a younger electorate to vote. The issues are now thrown into stark relief by Savita’s case and other cases. We now have real experience and the X case to inform us.

It’s time for change and time for reform.

Winston, the reason as to why we are having this debate is because the legal parameters are anything but clear and operational, there are laws here telling you termination is fine, laws over there telling you it’s not, laws over yonder telling you that it might be fine but who knows because nobody is brave enough to test the law.
While this was a temporary bill, I agree, but it would for the interim, cleared the confusion. The bill wasn’t the best – I and the author of it acknowledge this, but it would have helped in the short term to clear the confusion that doctors face every day.
In this day and age, the day of heavily regulated medicine, it is a crying shame that a medical procedure has to be present on a constitution.

If a Constitutional amendment is desired by the people, and voted in, then so be it. But at present the priority is for legislation that protects the life of the Mother in pregnancy. That point is agreed by both sides of the abortion debate.

(enough said)

@winston

You did not agree with Clare daly’s bill because you don’t agree with stop gap legislation. On the other hand you are now saying that the priority should be to legislate until such a time there might be constitutional amendment as per the will of the people ie a stop gap legislation. A bit of a contradiction here. Could Clare daly’s bill not have sufficed as ( to quote you) ‘the legislation that protects the life of the mother in pregnancy’?
I think it is a shame Clare daly’s bill was rejected because this could have provided a ‘short term’ protection for pregnant women whilst also enabling our government to stop fluffing around the issue and focus on what is really required- a vote put to the people. Now, rather than focusing on a referendum, the government will flaff around with a piece of legislation for who knows how long. A referendum seems less and less likely. They did not want Clare daly’ s bill passed because they want to be seen to be the ones who will ‘legislate for x’ ie a token gesture to ‘show ‘ the people’ that they are ‘ doing something’. A deflection from the reality that they have no intention of bringing about constitutional change as per a referendum. Our government, despite Alan Shatter’s insightful speech (as with successive governments for the last 20 years) lack the political courage to do what is required.
I was in primary school in 1983. As an Irish woman I want the right to vote on a situation which impinges directly on MY life. Sadly this is not going to happen for a long long time.

@Irene, can you please quote me where I advocated for a Constitutional amendment? I’m afraid your interpretative skills are a little lacking… I said ‘if’ people vote for a change in the Constitution then so be it…

In the meantime, I support optimal legislation, not convenient legislation.

Winston

Firstly, i did not say you were advocating constitutional change. In response to your ‘if a constitutional amendment is required …’ I stated ‘….there MIGHT be constitutional amendment as per the will of the people…’. The MIGHT used to reflect the uncertainty of your IF.

I was pointing out your apparent contradiction on your views re legislation. on the one hand you criticise stop gap legislation, but that is what legislating for X could well end up being, regardless of who puts it through.
A DIRECT quote from you “..but at present the priority is for legislation”… The “at present..” you use, would suggest that the legislation is not a long term solution.
Perhaps you should reflect on your own interpretive skills prior to criticising mine.

Secondly, that you think that the government could provide optimal legislation (which will take who knows how long to pontificate over) over clare daly’s bill is of course your opinion.
I personally do not have any faith that the government will produce such optimal legislation. Their own leader did not even vote on such an important issue, nor did L. Creighton who admitted on today’s Pat Kenny’s radio programme the division within government. She herself did not agree with Alan shatter’s position and she was pushing and pontificating re the pro life sentiment. In fact she admitted she was not sure of the whole issue of abortion herself and was heavily criticised by listeners for her confused and at times contradictory stance.

So no, I do not have faith that a divisive government, infused with prolife sentiment makes for optimal legislation on this issue that have displayed nothing but political cowardice at its very worst. the bill was a chance to legislate now and get on with the necessities of putting this to a referendum.

So less of the condescending remarks if you don’t mind winston. But sure I’m only a woman right…..I should leave such important complex issues to you men folk. After all, all this incompetent indecisive action only puts MY life on the line and many other Irish WOMEN of childbearing age ( many of whom were not even born when holy catholic Ireland came up with article 40.3.3 in 1983).

Interpret this winston and wake up – it is not your life.

@Irene, first you misinterpreted my words and now you attribute a position I would take if an abortion referendum were put forward without me ever stating one. Amazing.

At least with Peter & James there was an intellectual engagement but with you it has descended to a semantical debate.

I’ll leave you to your ramblings… Best ignored.

-it’s not your life at stake

@winston. I never suggested a position you would take if there was a referendum. I was referring to your stance on Clare daly’s bill. again I suggest you have a look at your own ability to interpret.

But sure ignore my ramblings. Men have been ignoring the ‘ramblings’ of women in this country re the abortion issue for decades.
You’re not the first and you ( unfortunately) wont be the last.
That is why we are in the mess we are in.

@Irene… The country was united in the wake of the Savita tragedy in a call for action on the issue…

We’d gain a lot more if we didn’t debase the debate into a pro-life/pro-choice or men/women issue.

I sincerely hope someone buys you a second chip for Christmas that can be used to balance out your shoulders…

Winston

First condescension, now insults. Hardly the hallmark of an intellectual debate ( which you seem to value so highly).

That you don’t agree with my opinion, fair enough.  But there was no need to resort to being so condescending. I  have reacted to your condescension and belittling remarks by reminding you that, as a woman, this issue effects me more than you (therefore your condescending remarks are all the more  incongruous to say the least). That you see this as me having ‘a chip on my shoulder’ says more about you than me.

However, all that said. I  cannot be bothered arguing with someone who is blinded by their own arrogance. 

Good luck and goodbye.

(To quote yourself: ‘enough said’.)

Ciara they can vote whatever way they like, it’s a Democracy

Do you know what the whip is George? Essentially it means that they can’t vote whatever way they like.

Brendan, you are very, very wrong. A TD can go against the party whip if s/he should so wish. Many have; I can think of three off of the top of my head.

Stange that a self confessed nazi would support democracy, isn’t it George.

I think they do remember who elected them and voted accordingly. Don’t forget that this is a democracy.

So write to them and tell them legislation is needed urgently and it needs to be absolutely legally sound which this bill may not have been. Keep the pressure on, they can’t ignore the groundswell of public opinion on this.

Thanks Patrick – There was a typo in the spreadsheet that we put together to crunch these numbers, so five FF TDs were mistakenly included as FG. This has been fixed now.

How did you manage to mistake 5 FF TDs for FineGael TDs – I think that is the question on everyone’s lips – spot the difference!

Since you asked: the five we got wrong (Kirk, McGrath, Troy, Cowen, Browne) all sit in the same row on the FF side. We just copied and pasted the wrong set of initials!

lol Gavan, not criticising you – half the country made the same mistake last time out!

Nice touch Ryan..

In fairness Gavan we now know there is no difference between FF & FG so your typo doesn’t really make much difference.

This is disgraceful you are so right shame on labour

Pardon my complete ignorance, but why did Labour vote No here?

Hóisín Realy
They voted NO because they are cowards and would not go against FG their partners in ehhh government . They will wait to debate the issue when they will be bringing in legislation some where down the road as per the report yesterday…………
And don’t be apologising for asking a question.

Labour voted no because they realised this proposal was not in the best interest of the mother or child and that the government have proposed better legislation in due course when the findings if the report have being examined.

Winston
This proposal was changed as per Reilly’s wishes AND The Supreme Court have already ruled on it.

Can we expect another 20 years wait so…!

Róisín Shortall (Ind/Lab) voted No. Case in point: never trust a Labor TD. I now realize Shortall’s resignation was nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Her real picture was exposed by her vote against this bill.

Fair point, Joe.

Still: Thomas P. Broughan (Ind/Lab) voted Yes

Fair play; credit where it’s due.

Good for Róisín Shortall!

Really do you honestly think that us dim wits are capable when we are the dim wits that allowed those dim wits on

@Cliodhna Lyons Think Michael Lowry is prob a little more worried about his on ass then any other issues at the moment

Thank the people who voted for FG by giving them a majority backbenchers – too much power corrupts.

Labor abandoned their core values. They will pay a heavy price for this in the elections because the voters are likely to move further left to the ULA or SF or Socialist Party.

Female voters should boycott FG, FF and LAB in the next elections.

Yea joe and who had nearly 20years in power and did nothing FF, FG in labour only in since 2011 and people act like they been sitting on this for years breaking news it takes time to legislate and abortion law shouldn’t be rushed or you get legal challenges

@ Declan Salmon. All the main parties, FF’ FG Lab, have been in government at some stage over the past 20 years. They’ve sat on their hands and done nothing and they shouldn’t rush ?!

@ Mary true but FF were in government at the time of the X case before the 92 election and after they should of sorted it why didnt they?

Declan – Fine Gael & Labor were in power between 1994 and 1997 (after the ‘ 92 X case).
They did zilch to legislate.

@Joe McGarry you sure you got the dates right the lab/fg coalition was in 97? with FF and Lab in 92-97

Declan FG / Lab have had 2 motions to legislate according to the findings of the Irish Supreme court in the last 8 months and they voted no. Why go back 20 years when you have such shining examples of dim, spineless wastes of space right in front of you tonight.

Declan – it is clear you have a literacy span. Did you even read my previous reply to you? Didn’t think so…

not uncommon for a TD not to press one of two buttons within the time alloted.
Ta / Nil.

Female Conservative TD’s voted no also.

Indeed conservative female voters did in obedience of the imposed whips of male dominated political parties. I think that only 4 female TDs voted out of a sincere pro-life motive.

Political parties would be better informed and more enlightened on this issue if political representation fairly reflected the gender balance in the population.

Unfortunately, it seems that female TDs are just as willing to vote by the whip, not their consciences. But there are a lot of female names on there who do actually support legislating for X.

“Indeed conservative female voters did in obedience of the imposed whips of male dominated political parties”

That is no excuse to have voted against it. They were freely available to vote their own preference. But like most other experiments, they have shown that conservatives fail while in power because of their Party line hook. 2016 can’t come soon enough.

@ Joe, I agree. Sadly, party allegiance prevails. I think that Irish people generally are more comfortable following authority, respecting direction and not rocking the boat. We are an orthodox and conformist people by nature and the Craig is our occasional safety valve.

The whip certainly worked well and the Taoiseach sent out a strong message to his back benchers as well as getting the whip to have a word in the ear of a few TDs who were showing signs of making up their own minds.

Bach bench party political members are cannon fodder. If you can toe the line, it is quite comfortable. Loyalty has its reward. Voting against the party whip can be very disadvantageous.

A calculated gamble is being taken that there will not be another Savita like tragedy until minimal legislation is introduced.

Yawn! This is just such lazy commentary. Simply saying that anybody who becomes a politician is either on the take or just there to exploit the system is exactly why this country is screwed.

Most politicians are decent people who are interested in what happens in the country and have the guts to put themselves forward for election unlike people like yourself who just like to stand at the side and constantly carp and criticise. I have more respect for them than you.

This was an altered version of the bill proposed in April, including changes recommended by Reilly. Then he had the balls to vote it down after the changes he wanted were made. Another example of his pure hypocrisy.

Jason, can I ask if the wording went beyond the 1992 X Case Supreme Court Ruling, permitting termination if the mother’s HEALTH and bodily integrity was a factor? I’m too lazy to dig around for a copy of the bill.

Never mind! Found it, Facebook has it’s uses ;)

When an individual stands on a party platform I expect them to vote according to that platform…

I agree im 22 and never got to vote on abortion and would love a vote on it but dont see it happening any time soon

Declan, well said! I have a feeling that younger voters will be more copped on than most of us older voters were back in 1983.

@peter think we are a bit more liberal and the ability to obtain non party spin is easier to obtain but id say a vote today would be just as divided as before

@ Declan, you may be right but the worst is that the status quo is retained and each Referendum brings us closer to a sensible outcome. Participating in the meeting outside the Dail tonight I saw great reform energy. I have a feeling that Savita’s death has exposed the dangers of the existing law.

A referendum on what exactly? Simply removing the wording will not be enough because it opens the door to abortion on demand. The polls show that a majority of Irish people are not in favour of that. Therefore it is likely that any referendum proposing this would be defeated.

So you’d have to remove the current wording and replace it with something. Depending on what that something is the chances of a referedum passing could be remote leaving us with just the same situation as before and we’d have to end up legislating anyway. In 1992 and 2001 we rejected proposals which would have narrowed the X case judgement by removing the suicide threat as a reason for abortion but left the other reasons from the X case open. Therefore its unlikely that this would pass either today.

So we’d probably end up with a referendum that would propose something very similar to what we can do already with simply legislation. What would be the point of that? Legislation along the judgement of the X case is at this point the most preferable option.

I disagree, Jim: the best thing to do would be to present more than a yes/no: multiple options. I have no doubt a majority of Irish people would vote to extend abortion to women who have been raped or those with fatal foetal abnormalities, but would cease to go further.

generalise much?

I think it’s also to be noted that TDs are coming under massive pressure from the ‘pro-life’ campaign currently in terms of the volume of calls and emails not to mention quite threatening behaviour as reported in The Journal earlier. It’s more important than ever to get our points across in a polite, rational and logical manner.

Yea SF a party that says one thing down here does another up the north and knows when to jump on the bandwagon
Independents ha what a waste of a vote

I love how everyone says Sinn Fein jumping on the bandwagon, are you yourself not jumping on the band wagon when saying Sinn Fein aren’t credible in the republic. They produced a fully costed budget (minus the wealth tax- where figures weren’t available from the department of finance) last week that proves we don’t have to listen to the bullshit from FF, FG, and the sellouts that are The Labour Party anymore. You say independents are a waste of a vote but once again that’s you jumping on the band wagon. FF FG LAB have proved their worth in this country over the past 20 odd years from protecting bankers to their elite ‘buddies’ and only a fool would vote for them again. Sinn Fein deserve a chance and hopefully they will get it next election.

Declan, you may be surprised to see the sway that independents will have after the next election. The days of whips and chains are going soon. It would be abhorent to me to vote for a party led by Gerry Adams or Martin Ferris, but if more Pearse Dohertys stepped up in Sinn Fein, then they could make the major party now that we know that the main trio still answer to the parochial calls.

i am questioning independants, is that not the new back door of politics,, thats what gallagher tried and sure his ff all the way,, thinking everyone should be investigated by the cia or someone out of our country to find out the truth, as we only have coverups here and leeches,, i would so love to see a real honest person run, not another liar and leech, cheat, feed your own jobs and feck the jobless and poor,, god forbid they take someone off unemployment line for a job worth over 100000,,, do they ever think that they could hire someone for 40 or 50 thousand and save money,, oops stupid me,, its his wife why should the people not pay another salary and pension for another leechs family member,,,

@Alien8 you will be surprised to what little effect they actually have all they do is cost us more claiming party expenses for 1.
The more independents you have more variation in their beliefs most independents now are lefties but say more got in I doubt they will be leading to friction and splits so you wont get big alliances but more smaller ones and inaction
But lets be honest if your not in government here you really are useless why waste time on non bills that will never be but instead they should be pressuring the gov on its policy/ legislation and taking up with them issues to legislate or fix

I agree with you on SF to an extenent but to be honest id rather throw away my vote than give it to them id personally believe a SF government would ruin this country worse than FF

That asshat Michael Lowry is independent and voted no ( no surprise but just pointing not all indepents voted yes)

So what then? Just vote in the same three useless parties that have ruined our country?. Ill be voting independent in next election. The trioika of FG, FF and Labour should be put out to pasture on their fat pensions.

Ula as well Daryl

@John O’Sullivan to be honest id be more FG but this is why: I dont believe in the core socialist values in LAB, SF ULA that leaves FF sorry but had way to much of them that really only leaves FG for me but id honestly like to see a non lefties new party in the dail it would most likely get my vote

@Declan I live in Tipp (although south) and I am discusted the people of NT voted Lowry in. I do agree with you in the sense of different views independents bring but to be honest with you I believe the majority of independents are in it for the ordinary working person trying to make a decent living in this country and that’s what would be represented with an independent. In terms of SF I have personally seen the work that Sinn Fein do at grassroots level and its a credit to the party and that is why I have decided to support Sinn Fein in the next election. I agree though that the likes of Adams (while i have no problem with him and i love listening to him speak) are holding the party back and the likes of Doherty who are fine, honest politicians are the likes who will bring SF forward. I look forward to a decent future in my country but we have to clean up our corrupt political system first and getting rid of FF, FG and Lab is a start.

Fine Gael / Fianna Fáil (same party) – NO
Labour (no principles, cowards) – NO
Sinn Féin (opportunists, fence-sitters, and actors) – NO
ULA (actually principled, honest people) – YES

@Doggy- I’m counting the ULA as independents, simply because we’ll they are independents ha ha

@Daryl walsh can you honestly say SF is not as corrupt as the next party? Id dont defend any of them on that part they all milk the country with expenses/ pay and pensions

I live in west Dublin SF will probably do good here although alot of competition with socialists but to be honest iv seen every party apart from FF do good grass roots work here so I can only comment on that but on a national level really is only what counts we got councils for grass roots.

I honestly cant stand gerry adams and his past will catch up with him (very interested to see what will come out of the boston college tapes keep and eye on it, it may wreck alot of big SF names)

I agree with you on FF they should of been barred from politics
But dont see what lab / FG have done wrong most bad decisions have been the results of FF effects so would like to see them in gov when the country is not under bailout conditions

*,Well

I count ULA as independents and honest yea sure Boyd barret and Joe higgins all claim party allowances and only having 2 members each in the socalists and people before profits it goes straight to them so I laugh at that and joe higgins leaving his EU seat after being elected disgusts me as it goes to one of his party members uncontested unelected job for the boys as both will get a pension from it

It should be pointed out that SF are actually an anti-abortion party and they have opposed the opening of abortion clinics in Northern Ireland despite it actaully being legal there. But of course this is just another example of Sinn Fein, the all-Ireland party speaking out of both sides of its mouth depending on where they are talking.

@Declan I really don’t know how you can say why have Lab/Fg done wrong.
To name a few, before election 2011 Lab and FG in their manifestos promised students across Ireland that college fees would be left alone, and grants levels would be maintained- by 2015 fees will have gone up by €1000 euro under this government and the grant will have been cut by at least 11-15% while our poor university president and lecturers are complaining they can’t live on 235k a year- it’s sickening.
FG said ‘not another red cent to bondholders’ – I don’t even have to comment on that one.
A property tax will be introduced when families are struggling to live on less than €50 a month after bills.
Home help hours are been cut to those in dyer need across the country- this was another broken promise by both parties.

These are only some of the lies Lab/Fg have told us to get elected and we would be fools to think that ‘they have done nothing wrong’. It’s sickening to see what these people are doing to this country and by carrying on with the same policies of FF they are keepin the big boys happy while families across Ireland sink deeper into debt.

@jim walsh this actually hurts me to say this but I disagree with you ha SF are an anti abortion but have said on the record but north and here that they agree when the the mother is at risk or its non viable that abortions should be allowed but thats a current position not sure if they only took it after what happened in galway

@ Jim, SF have said publically numerous times yes they are against abortion ‘on demand’ as I’ve heard people calling it, but when the life of the mother is at risk or when rape, incest or suicide is a factor then the termination of the child should be allowed.

Daryl home help cuts economic position from FF, bondholders not allowed by troika (basically a default) which FF got us into as it.

Im a student 3rd of 4 years dont need to talk to me about the problems in 3rd level,
firstly lecturer and president wages is a FF problem they have a contract it cant be broken and should never be allowed that high ever
on property tax most developed countries in the world have one its silly we havnt go move to usa, canada Australia they all have property taxes some are very steep
They promised no introduction of fees if im right increasing the capitation technically aint fees as it is supposed to go to your SU yea like that happens
On the grant im sorry but it is abused and iv seen it first hand, it should be cut standard of living costs are down it should be reflected although the grant processing is a joke

My point is that Sinn Fein are quite clever at sounding progressive and liberal but in reality are quite a socially conservative party in many ways. The reality is that their party position on abortion is no different to that of FF/FG/Lab who are also all officially in favour of abortion where the life of the mother is at risk.

id say at the moment they are more socialist but need to go more conservative if they ever want room be in government,
the fact really is the position on abortion by parties doesn’t matter the eu says blanket bans are against rules so some Will have to be allowed but i believe a new referendum needs to be held with the options of do you want abortions available to all like UK or just to.those at risk ie death to mother,non viable feauts rape and so on like up in northern Ireland but no party would do this

@declan But there isn’t another non lefty party to vote for besides tweedle Gael and tweedle Fail. Hence my decision to vote for the strongest independents cork south central can churn out. Admittedly I’m not exactly optimistic about it.

@Declan there is only so much you can blame FF with. This government is carrying on with the same old same old that got us into this mess and you can’t cut your way out of a recession it’s just not possible. Jobs continue to be lost there has been an increase of 1% to the live register in the nearly 2 years of this governments term and thousands more are emigrating. I’m a student also and the grant barely covers my costs of college and it’s next to impossible to get a part time job I’m trying since I started college a year and a half ago. There was a pay cap put onto wages of TD’s, bankers, special advisers you name all of which were breached. Enda or Noonan haven’t got the balls to stand up to these people but why would they when the ordinary person is suffering because of it they do give a Fk about anyone but themselves and hopefully they will pay next election

students generally hold a very socialist view on politics that Will change when you work and realise what they would do either your taxes, you say you cant cut out of recession well technically we did and stayed out but you must cut when you run a 10billion deficit they can’t spend what they dont have where would they get this money?(and before you say cut the promsery note or bank debt that you can’t until the troika say so as it would be a default and look what’s happening to Argentina now from its 2001 default bond holders still after them) you say you can’t blame ff for everything give examples cause everything so far is FF fault

Saying that people become naturally less socialist when they work is utterly ridiculous. Do you even know what socialism is? So you think that when people work and discover that their labour is pilfered by the bosses, they will become less socialist? Madness!

Socialism was born of labour movement, i.e. people who work

But maybe you prefer your tax money going to financial gamblers and politicians instead of to healthcare and education.

@Declan “you can’t cut the promissory note or bank deal until the troika say so”??? F**k the troika this is our country, people fought and died for this country and I for one won’t be ruled be some German freewheeler.. We are a sovereign independent state and the sooner people like you realise that the sooner the Troika will be gone.. Viva la Revolution

I thought the consent issue would be very much open to challenge and also the medical council panel issue seemed a little vague. It just gives me an uncomfortable vision of Enda saying ‘we await the judgment in Youth Defence v Ireland and the AG due in 2016’! Agreed, much as I have little time for many Independents, their nipping at the heels of the government is invaluable, a more effective opposition than FF anyway.

If a government minister or TD is absent because they are performing other duties attached to their office, an opposition TD usually absents themselves to account for the minister being away.

For example, in most late-night votes you’ll find Enda Kenny absent, because he’s attending other functions relating to his job. Therefore, his opposition counterpart Micheál Martin will abstain.

It might seem a bit fanciful – and it often is – but the idea is that a government shouldn’t be defeated in the Dáil simply because its ministers were away on ministerial business.

It sounds a bit mad.

If the government or the opposition want to pass or defeat a vote they should turn up.

The idea is that a Government shouldn’t be held to ransom on every single vote because sometime their duties require them to be absent. Are you seriously suggesting that if a Minister was at critical negotiations in Europe they should leave in order to vote on something potentially trivial in Dublin?

No, I can see why a minister would need to be absent occasionally. But there’s something a bit stage rehearsed about the whole thing – as if the outcome is a foregone conclusion (god, that sounds naive, even to me!)

The idea that in this day and age they have to be in the bloody room to vote is ridiculous.

No minister should be allowed abstain from any vote. They are put there to legislate so should do so.

Alice, superbly expressed. I envy your ability to call it as it is. Well said.

And we also know the expert group findings state exactly what Claire Daly has proposed. The only difference is the governments redacted version will ensure that there is still the possiblitiy that women cannot make choices regarding their own situation, and will need approval by Government appointed psychiatrists (i.e. Patricia Casey) and Board approval by hospitals (church, church and church).

Without a doubt, more girls and women will die through suicide or complications after the government publish their bill, and we will be asking for another referendum in 10 years time.

I have to say I thought Claire Dalys bill reflected the expert groups recommendations quite well (maybe they could have saved some money by just asking her for her opinion).

I notice it also included a “chilling effect” of it’s own. For pro life extremists who tend to picket outside clinics where abortions are performed and harassing nurses and doctors – even the women attending the clinics. It would give them cause to think twice about the sort f behaviour we see in other countries outside clinics and I felt it was a very responsible measure to request that these motives be considered if a conviction under the non fatal offences against the person act was obtained.

I see you seem to know exactly what is in the Government Bill. Quite amazing considering it hasn’t be drafted yet.
And Claire Daly herself admitted that her bill wasn’t perfect. There was no point in reintroducing this bill knowing that a Government Bill was on the way. This was just more political posturing.

Agree Jim it is political posturing by FG and Lab (the party which has legislation for the x case in its program for government lest we forget) as Daly said any amendments required for her bill could have been done at committee stage. FG & Lab could not stomach passing a bill that they did not draw up. Small minds and big egos.

No, they turned down a bill which even its author admits is not perfect and which could be subject to legal challenge thus delaying us even more in finally sorting this matter out.

I take it Jim that the “committee stage” means nothing to you or you don’t understand what it means or facilitates?

I’m very well aware of the process Katie but I think that somehow if the bill was altered in committee stage there would be all sort of complaints from different sides about it being watered down or its meaning changed.

The vote tonight would not have passed the Bill, merely allowed it to proceed to the next stage. Please explain if you consider that the Bill contains any defect which could not have been amended at Committee Stage since you have read the Bill.

The voting in this bill is newsworthy. The voting on, say for example, Mattie McGrath’s scrap dealers bill, less so. Hence why one would go to the bother.

Hello? I’m not trying to be pedantic. I have read four related stories here and I am still none the wiser. Shockingly bad journalism.

Ya I don’t get what exactly the vote was either? What did the bill say?

Hi Michael – if you would just bear with me a few minutes, I’m updating the pieces as fast as I can.
Thanks
Aoife

Hi Michael and Adele – I’ve now updated the piece to include a link to the bill and also an explanation of what it would have set out to do.
I do hope that makes the issue clearer for you.
Thanks
Aoife

Thanks Aoife!

No problem Adele

Just to clarify – it was this piece I updated: http://www.thejournal.ie/clare-daly-abortion-bill-vote-693646-Nov2012/
(It made more sense to update that than this piece)
Aoife

Thanks Aoife. See? I’m not such a bad guy. 86 red thumbs? Go figure.

As are John Browne, Michael McGrath and Robert Troy – all of whom fell victim to the spreadsheet typo I mentioned above. Corrected now – sorry!

so from all this you come up with that.

Not you Gavan. Patricks picking through checking everything is a bit pedantic

Why not email the writer? There’s a link at the end of most stories.. Saves you pointing it out in public and coming off as pedantic :)

I’ve read the bill and much as I respect Clare Daly for what she’s trying to do I’m not entirely convinced she’s up to drafting this level of legislation which is very likely to be challenged in the courts. The current impasse is lousy but I’m not sure rushed legislation is the answer either. I’d love to see a really good impartial legal opinion on this bill. Anyone know if there’s one available?

”good impartial legal opinion” in Ireland you serious? dont think the word impartial can ever be in a debate on a bill.
I respect What she was doing but it takes a lot of skill and experience like that of the many civil servants that do it everyday for the government to create good legislation and we know they mess up so instead of forcing this waste of time she could of bettered her time pushing the government

Agreed, rushed regulation is not the answer but the left continuously forward rubbish bills which they know will not pass and for what reason are they doing this? Using tragic situations to forward ones own agenda profile is not on IMO ! Also if they were that fussed about their bill, why was there 7 ind,SF and ULA TDs absent?

Terence cause to me I would of assumed SF members hold a more Catholic ethos and I say the whip had trouble as it was getting members to vote or am I wrong on SF values?

why was there 7 ind,SF and ULA TDs absent?

All 5 ULA TDs were present and voted Yes.

Clare Daly’s bill was a brave but imperfect attempt to provide a stopgap legal measure to protect the lives of pregnant women until a Referendum is passed giving priority to the life and health of women.

There are 5 defects in the Bill, 3 significant, but easily amendable at Committee Stage.

If the Bill was passed and enacted into law, it would have enjoyed the presumption of constitutionality unless or until found to be unconstitutional.

The political reality is that the major political parties could not allow a minority TD to seize the political initiative after 20 years of evasion.

The strategy of introducing the Bill is excellent. It allowed Alan Shatter to express his own views and it has started a real impetus to reform at long last. Ms. Daly knew her Bill would not pass. She needed to relight the fire on this issue and she has done so with remarkable success.

Sinn Fein would be of the left, which in general terms would mean that religion wouldn’t matter…they jump on every bandwagon going though

@Peter

Spot on, mate.

I dont know if seen gerry adams on shows before and he holds very strongly his Catholic beliefs.

Very true peter but did she really need to light a fire under it when we already know government legislation is on its way?

”the presumption of constitutionality unless or until found to be unconstitutional.” this will be true for any legislation it will be challenged by some pro life groups in the courts more reason why it should be done right in the first place not leading to another delay

Thanks for that Peter, any idea what the significant errors were? I agree absolutely this has had the desired effect, it’s keeping pressure on the government and providing a forum for discussion, all positives. Rather than everybody berating their TDs for voting this down it might be more productive to get on to your local representative and point out legislation is needed as soon as possible and your vote depends on it.

The point being Peter that somebody would have definitely taken action to the courts (firstly the High Court and then probably to the Supreme Court) about this bill. I’m fairly sure some Pro-Life group or person would have mounted a challenge. If that had happened it would probably then prevent any further legislation being moved on this issue. And you can be sure the if an action was taken then you can bet that hospitals would be very reluctant to act upon it while it was being challenged in case it was subsequently found to be unconstitutional.

There is at least one SF TD (Peader Tobin who was absent tonight) who has more or less said that he won’t vote in favour of any bill that introduces abortion in any circumstances.

Yes I’d prefer to wait for the legislation based on the expert report as opposed to what Mick and Clare threw together in bed one night so they could whip up some publicity for themselves.

Anyone know how the “expert” report authors were selected ?

FFG will put off as long as they can