TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 11 °C Wednesday 19 June, 2013

Government will legislate to allow abortion in line with X Case ruling

The legislation, which will be introduced in the New Year, will be supplemented by more detailed regulations.

Pro-choice protesters at a demonstration demanding legislation for the X Case in Dublin last month. The government today confirmed it would introduce legislation to allow for abortion under the terms of the X Case ruling.
Pro-choice protesters at a demonstration demanding legislation for the X Case in Dublin last month. The government today confirmed it would introduce legislation to allow for abortion under the terms of the X Case ruling.
Image: Laura Hutton/Photocall Ireland

THE GOVERNMENT has agreed to introduce new legislation allowing abortions to be carried out in Ireland within the terms of the Supreme Court ruling in the X Case.

The agreement means the Oireachtas will vote in the New Year on the first piece of legislation in Irish history which will permit abortions to be carried out in circumstances where the life of the mother is at risk, and where that risk can only be addressed by terminating the pregnancy.

The decision was made by ministers at their weekly Cabinet meeting this morning, three weeks after they first received and debated the report of an Expert Group set up in the wake of a European Court of Human Rights ruling which deemed the absence of legislation in Ireland to be a breach of human rights.

The legislation will be supplemented by regulations governing the exact circumstances under which abortions can be carried out.

The government said in a statement this afternoon that the drafting of both legislation and regulations would be “within the parameters of Article Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the X Case”.

The statement added that the forthcoming legislation would also “make appropriate amendments to the criminal law in this area” – a reference to existing criminal law from 1861 which makes it an offence to undergo or administer any procedure intending to deliberately cause a miscarriage.

“The legislation should provide the clarity and certainty in relation to the process of deciding when a termination of pregnancy is permissible, that is where there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as opposed to the health, of the woman and this risk can only be averted by the termination of her pregnancy,” the statement said.

‘Committed to ensuring the safety of pregnant women’

The ‘legislation plus regulations’ option had been one of the four main options outlined by the Expert Group, which said the option would provide “appropriate checks and balances between the powers of the legislature and the executive”, and would also be flexible enough to account for future medical developments.

Decisions on finer points of the government’s new policy have been deferred until next year, on request from the Minister for Health, James Reilly.

“I know that most people have personal views on this matter,” Reilly said in a statement this afternoon.

“However, the Government is committed to ensuring that the safety of pregnant women in Ireland is maintained and strengthened. We must fulfil our duty of care towards them.

For that purpose, we will clarify in legislation and regulation what is available by way of treatment to a woman when a pregnancy gives rise to a threat to a woman’s life.

We will also clarify what is legal for the professionals who must provide that care while at all times taking full account of the equal right to life of the unborn child.

Reilly stressed that the government would not “pre-empt the debate” that would follow its decision by speculating on finer details of the proposed new legislation.

Legislation will remove ‘chilling effect’

The government will now formally communicate its decision to the European Court on Human Rights, which ruled in 2010 that the human rights of Irish women were being breached by the government’s failure to introduce legislation offering clear guidance on when abortions can be administered.

In that case, the court described the continuing presence of the 1861 criminal legislation as a “chilling effect” on the ability of doctors and medical professionals to make clear decisions about when their patients could undergo abortions, and whether they were empowered to administer them.

Choice Ireland has welcomed the decision, though its spokeswoman Sinéad Ahern said it was now vital that the implementation of the legislation not be further delayed.

“We are calling on the government to commit to a timescale to draft and implement legislation,” Ahern said.

Read: Mullen warns of ‘double-think’ on X Case after Newtown massacre

  • Share on Facebook
  • Email this article
  •  

Read next:

Comments (109 Comments)

  • While the news is Welcomed. It still will not cover situations were the baby has a fatal abnormailty. We will still have to fight on. Couples every week are facing this horrendous journey and it is cruel.

    Reply
  • Only took 20 years.

    Reply
  • Brian 18/12/12 #

    Holy Ireland is gone, Pro Lifers. Deal with it.

    Meanwhile, thousands of Irish women will still be forced to travel across the Irish Sea because they can’t be looked after properly in their own country.

    Reply
  • About time.

    Reply
  • This is long overdue and it’s just a shame a woman had to die to force these cowardly politicians to do their jobs and legislate instead of cowering before the anti choice bullies and religious lunatics who threaten them. Of course it will do nothing to stop the disgraceful ‘outsourcing’ of the Irish problem of no abortion on demand for Irish women in their own country, those who wish to terminate will still have to go abroad to do so. They need to make abortion on demand a legal right for all women in Ireland. The choice is then where it should have always been in the first place.. with the woman! This changes very little for the majority of Irish women, they are still being denied the right to choose and until that is rectified then this issue will not go away. The anti-choice ravers and ranters and their religious and right wing backers will do everything they can to keep women from being allowed that choice and the yellow streaked politicians will do nothing just like they have done nothing for over 2 decades so unless the people of Ireland demand these choices they won’t happen. It’s up to the women of Ireland to use their power in elections and make these politicians take note.

    Reply
  • A welcome turn of events but not NEARLY enough. By the time the risk to a womans health becomes what is considered a risk to her life it may be too late. In instances where the foetus is not viable or is being miscarried, the health of the mother should be the primary concern, not waiting days with her in agony until the foetal heartbeat disappears as in Savita Halapanavars case.

    Reply
    • Werejammin, that is true. Life and health are a continuum. Sadly and obscenely, Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution as interpreted in the X case does not allow the health of the pregnant woman to be taken into account.

      A Referendum is the only legal solution but the problem with and obstacle to a Referendum is that it would be fully democratic.

      If there is uproar from pro-life over very limited legislation, can you imagine what would happen of their cherished Eight Amendment, Article 40.3.3 were to come under threat?

      Reply
    • Colm 18/12/12 #

      @ Peter Richardson

      I think the general electorate are a lot more educated than those that voted on this issue several years ago. If a referendum were called, which certainly won’t be in Fine Gael’s time of power, I would imagine common sense would prevail and abortion would be legalised. The anti-choice position is based on a lack of understanding and in some cases, fear, but they are the minority.

      Reply
    • @ Colm, I agree. The pro-lifers will scare the politicians and it is telling that Desmond O’Toole of the Labour Party does not see a Referendum happening in this Dail.

      As a much older man, one thing that heartens me is that the younger electorate are more independent minded, less subservient to the Roman Catholic Church and more enlightened than back in 1983. Back then, before clerical child abuse was fully revealed, when we were told by the RC Church to jump, we asked how high.

      It would be interesting to see what the result of a Referendum would be. I would be reasonably confident that it would repeal Article 40.3.3 but people would have to be brave enough to stand up to the bullies in the Life Institute.

      Reply
  • What about cases where the health, as opposed to the life, of the woman is at risk? Is that being kicked to touch until we are forced by the ECtHR to do something?

    Reply
    • Conor, good question. Unfortunately, the Eight Amendment, Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution does not permit the health of the pregnant woman to be considered. A pregnant woman is legally inferior to all other people during the course of her pregnancy. As a man I find that offensive. I can only imagine what women think.

      Reply
  • It’s a start, but I’m for abortion within an agreed timeframe if the woman feels it necessary

    Reply
  • I would pay good money to be a fly on the wall at Michelle Mulherins constituency office this afternoon. It would make for the merriest of merry Christmases to see her genuflecting feverishly behind sandbags full of the holiest of holy communion and a few bottles of Pauillac Chateau Ducru-Beaucaillou braying REPENT! REPENT!

    Better still the IONA institute, those guys be knee deep in tea and biscuits jamming up each others dial up connections trying to get his Holiness on Skype for an oul chinwag about what to do about the Irish problem.

    Reply
  • It’s a good start, but I believe Katherine Lynch’s words yesterday said it best there will be another incident and the whole issue will have to be opened up again as it’s too narrow what has been agreed

    Reply
  • Great, now let’s fight the full rights of women in choosing

    Reply
  • The comments above show why this has been an issue that all politicians have avoided for 20 years now. Thankfully some progress is being made towards implementing what the Supreme Court says is the law of the land. Clearly in the longer term this new situation doesn’t suit anybody. Pro-Life people see it as a misterpretation of what the Eight Amendment was supposed to do. Pro-Choice people see it as the barest that the Government can do.

    The problem is that it is simply not possible to have a rational calm debate on this issue. People of either side are convinced of the right of their argument and are not open to changing their opinion. And opinion polls show clearly that Ireland is not agreed on any one course of action to resolve the issue.

    Reply
    • A Referendum allowing the opportunity to repeal Article 40.3.3 would be the best and most truly democratic way of ascertaining public opinion. The women affected in 2012 and 2013 should have the right to vote on this issue.

      Let the people decide.

      Reply
  • Depending on the specifics of the proposed legislation, it may be progress but due to Constitutional constraints the legislation will have to be very limited.

    The only legally effective solution will be to repeal Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, the wretched and pernicious result of the 1983 Eight Amendment.

    Women should be entitled to make their own decisions. A caring society, instead of trying to apply criminal law, would instead provide every possible ante natal or post natal care and support.

    Paradoxically, it is often countries with liberal abortion law regimes which also have low rates of termination.

    Poverty, restricted medical services, health cut backs, more limited maternity resources and austerity measures are hardly conducive to encouraging fewer terminations.

    The pro-life campaign has nothing to do with reduction in terminations, it can’t change the UK option but it has everything to do with preserving and enhancing right wing and authoritarian values.

    Let each woman decide according to her own particular circumstances. No woman will unnecessarily or capriciously resort to abortion on trivial grounds.

    Reply
  • Great news. Its a start anyway

    Reply
  • A great start in the process and a good day for women’s/girls rights albeit grudgingly from the government.

    Reply
  • It’s a start but, we need to see the legislation and the regulations before saying it’s progress.

    Reply
  • It is the first step in a long battle for the rights of women in Ireland. Sadly it took the death of Savita to force the hand of this government into action. People’s attitudes have changed dramatically on the issue of abortion in recent years. The right to choose has still to be fought for and until this human right is granted, the battle continues!!
    http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/un-concerned-over-womens-health-3330317.html

    Reply
    • Considering he still feels he needs to protect a foetus’s “right to life”, I’ve a feeling we’re in for a long battle.

      Reply
    • Further commenting spokesperson Stephanie Lord said “Legislating for the X case is a vital step forward to protect the lives of Irish women and to vindicate their constitutional rights however any legislation for X still strictly limits access to abortion in Ireland and will only cover a very small proportion of the Irish women who terminate pregnancies every year. We are calling on the government to examine the broader issue of abortion and to hold a referendum to roll back the 8th amendment.”

      Reply
    • @ Mary Costello, thanks for quoting Stephanie Lord. She expresses the nub of the problem. Legislation can only be a very short term and very limited response. The Eight Amendment needs to be repealed but the Government is too fearful of the strident, well funded and superbly organised pro-life lobby to allow a democratic referendum.

      This should be a matter for the 2013 electorate not the 1983 electorate which was bullied and cajoled into supporting the “pro-life” amendment.

      Irish women of 2012 should not be subject to the tyranny of a Roman Catholic Church imposed referendum of 1983.

      Reply
    • A foetus does have a right to life.

      Reply
    • Then try them for murder charges because legislations being passed buddy

      Reply
  • wow well done, you’re only what 30 years behind the rest of Europe?

    Reply
  • Mjhint 18/12/12 #

    This is far from enough but at least its a move in the right direction. We are starting to grow up.

    Reply
  • government yet again ‘kicking the can down the road ‘ for someone else to face up to, why cant they just do at least 1 thing properly.

    Reply
  • Tricia G 18/12/12 #

    I agree with abortion in a very limited manner. Like when a woman is pregnant and she doesn’t want to be.

    Disclaimer: (Up to the point when the foetus is viable outside the womb and only after in cases where the the mother’s life is in danger or in cases of fatal fetal a normality) And let’s all remember that VAST majority of abortions occur prior to 12 weeks.

    Reply
    • You can have an abortion up to 24 weeks in the Britain. That’s 6 months old. Have you seen what a six month old “foetus” looks like.

      Rights are one thing but what about responsibility for the life of the foetus.

      Reply
    • Tricia G 18/12/12 #

      Well done completely ignoring my point about the vast majority of abortions taking place prior to 12 weeks.

      Do you accept that abortions will happen irrespective of whether it’s legal or not?
      Do accept that if the UK wasn’t there providing safe abortions a large number of women would die or be permenantly scarred from “backstreet” abortions?
      Do you care? Or do you only care about the foetus/baby?

      Reply
  • It’s about time.. Just a shame it took the death of a young woman to get them to do it.
    The sooner it’s put into effect the sooner no other poor woman dies needlesly.

    Also what’s going through the minds of those protesters, do they want more women to die for the sake of their religious or ideological beliefs?!

    Reply
  • I don’t understand how it can create”abortion on demand” surely if they implement the systems correctly with very clear guidelines the medical profession can make decisions as and when needed. Although it does have to be considered the amount of women per day going to UK to seek abortions. We cannot continue to brush it under the carpet pretend it’s not happening and make it someone else’s problem, which is what the church seems to want to happen but then that’s to be expected. It’s time we moved forward and realised that for some this becomes a choice that has to be made and it’s also long overdue that we take care of our own.

    Reply
  • That’s bullshit stephan! Any women in a “serious circumstance” condition should be liable for abortion but under no circumstance should she be allowed have an abortion in normal cases, example she conceived a child true consenting sex where proper means of contraceptives were not used! It wasn’t that child’s fault it was created

    Reply
  • It’s dispicable using the life of a women to try get your agendas across on abortion (when not having an abortion wasn’t the cause of her death)

    Reply
    • Please – let me figure this one out.. On one hand you say that there’s not enough clear information on the case to be commenting, then go on to your conclusion of the case..
      Which are you? Decided abortion wouldn’t have saved her, or waiting for the report?

      The majority of gynaecologists who have weighed in on this have agreed that abortion would have increased her chances of survival. There’s been one or two who have said that it wouldn’t and the pro life side have been shouting it from the rooftops..

      News flash.
      E. coli is a bacteria found in faeces, the anus and vagina are very close together meaning that a dilated cervix is a huge risk for contamination with this bacteria. If she had had septicaemia upon arrival, she would have been in ICU much quicker.
      Still reckon facilitating the miscarriage, allowing the cervix to contract and close off the avenue for infection wouldn’t have helped?

      Reply
  • Yes under circumstances abortion should be legalised but u have all these pro abortionists since savitas death jumping on the bandwagon screaming for abortion to be legalised on demand saying “it would have saved savitas life” news flash it wouldn’t

    Reply
  • It wouldn’t have helped shanti I have read umpteen reports! She was suffering severe septicaemia an infection in the organs and blood! And to quote numerous reports! AN ABORTION WOUKD NOT HAVE SAVED savita! People are trying to use her case to push abortion legislation here! It’s sick

    Reply
  • Eoin abortion would not have saved savitas life! That’s why the ins and outs of her case are misleading because use the public don’t no the full story

    Reply
  • Kevin-
    Stupid mammy shouldn’t have the option of killing a child she created(who never asked to be created) true stupidness and carelessness

    Reply
  • That’s what will happen in the long run Susan! They will put out a document outlining in what areas women are liable for abortion! It certainly will not be abortion on demand

    Reply
  • I agree in serious circumstances but not for a girl and a fella who stupidly don’t use contraceptives for both and he ejaculates inside her! That innocent child was created tru mammy and daddy’s stupidity

    Reply
  • I agree with abortion but do I agree with it ON DEMAND regardless of the situation? Hell no

    Reply
  • Bad news im pro life this will eventually allow abortion on demand Enda Kenny is a traitor.

    Reply
    • If I demand an abortion can I have one? Grow up ffs. This will not lead to it on demand but your right saying kenny is a traitor.

      Reply
    • @ Oliver, no, you have that totally wrong. I am not an admirer of Mr. Kenny but you need to understand that in so acting, the Government is merely seeking to comply with the X Case and its Human Rights obligations.

      By the way, it is important that the extremist end of the pro-life lobby do not act on emotive expressions such as “traitor” and be incited to harass and threaten politicians as they have done in the past.

      It’s time for an end to the bully boy tactics.

      In fairness, the politicians were backed into a corner, legally speaking, but were petrified by the level of abuse and harassment they expect to receive for doing what is merely their minimum legal duty.

      So no hurley sticks this time round please.

      Reply
    • Actually Kenny should be applauded for being the first Taoiseach in 20 years to not betray the Irish people

      Reply
    • So if anyone needs one..WE’LL HAVE TO ASK OLIVER HIS PERMISSION FIRST

      Reply
    • Kim 18/12/12 #

      Well Oliver you need not worry YOU will NEVER be able to have one…. Even if it was on demand!!!

      Reply
    • Reg 18/12/12 #

      Oliver, interesting use of the word traitor form someone who has a link to Fianna Fail on their Facebook page. Fianna Fail have come very close to destroying this country twice in my lifetime and I am only in my 40s.

      Reply
  • sakipol 18/12/12 #

    I expect we need to see the text of the legislation before commenting. If it just codifies current medical practise, it should be fine. I.e. doctors can and should intervene to save the life of the mother where necessary.

    However, given that most UK abortions are under the dubious umbrella of “mental health” – which is essentially on demand till 24weeks; till birth if foetal disability present- we need to make sure that the best interests of Irish women are truely bring served here.

    Reply
  • What a waste. All that was to expected after the Savita incident: The bare minimum. Unconditional abortion all round should be the answer, not this faff. Women’s rights groups should not except this as “oh well at least its a start”. They should flat out reject it until they get the whole shebang.

    Reply
  • Just wondering, when they allow abortion under the threat of suicide, will that mean that I will be relieved of my debt if I stop paying my mortgage and tell my bank if they come looking for money, I’ll commit suicide?

    Reply
    • What?????!

      Reply
    • Colm 18/12/12 #

      I think your comment is more of a mental health issue. Congratulations, what sheer ignorance.

      Reply
    • Brian 18/12/12 #

      @ James – I don’t know whether you’re trying to be funny or sarcastic but you failed on both counts anyway

      Reply
    • Ok, so no-one has answered, but many don’t like the question? May I ask why? If its considered prudent to grant a pregnant woman an abortion on threat of suicide, then why not a person in severe debt who is suicidal etc? Am I being illogical or something? I’m happy to be corrected, but why can it apply to the pregnant woman, but not the person in severe debt.
      As for sheer ignorance Colm, well would you mind chipping away at that ignorance for me and join the dots for me? Maybe I am just completely stupid, but the answers thus far haven’t actually dealt with anything, so it hasn’t been shown. I would appreciate being enlightened in relation to the question though, so that at least I can realise my stupidity, so whenever yee are ready. Its obviously so obvious to you how ridiculous I’m being, so fire away.
      Thanks guys.

      Reply
    • No James. It means you’ll probably be (in the long run) declared bankrupt with all that that entails.

      It doesn’t mean you’ll be forced to carry a pregnancy for nine months with all that THAT then entails.

      Reply
    • Lots of people not liking my question, but no-one articulating the issue with it. It must be a silly question, so please help this mentally ill ignoramus (according to Colm) out and show me the issue. C’mon folks, its Christmas.

      Reply
    • Tricia, I realise with the right advice, treatment and support I could be shown better alternatives to suicide when in a financial dead end, but why, in the case of pregnancy, is the same logic not applying?

      Reply
    • Brian 18/12/12 #

      It’s not a genuine question, you’re just being a smart arse. Now go away.

      Reply
    • Colm 18/12/12 #

      @ James, Your original comment comes across as sarcasm, but if you’re genuinelly curious, I’ll happily explain my personnal viewpoint.

      To compare a woman’s choice for an abortion to financial difficulty, cheapens the trauma that an abortion causes. Being male, we’re sadly of the gender that holds the prerogative on allowing women’s rights, and we’ll never have to make that choice. So I can only base my opinion on the countless statements and interviews that have come to light over the last few years. In those accounts, suicide was only a considered option in certain extreme cases, rape or incest. It’s never an easy option for anyone to consider and once it is, it’s very difficult to treat. ‘He who saves a man against his will, as good as murders him’.

      Now financial difficulty, I know causes a lot of distress too. There are groups that offer free advice on managing your income. When you have none, there are charities that offer assistance when you’ve reached rock bottom. And we’re lucky in Ireland to have a system that guarentees social protection against extreme poverty. Not all these options are perfect, but my point is that they are there. We have them. We don’t have any form of protection in Ireland for an unwanted pregnancy where a woman feels her only choice is to take her own life. Both are definitely severe problems, but just not on the same scale in my opinion.

      Reply
    • So there IS an answer Brian, but you are just not willing to give it due to your assessment of me being a smart ass is that right?

      Reply
    • @James , Colm has clearly answered your stupid question. He’s spent more time on this than it probably merits and by posting this I probably am too. You are being facetious, and you know it (your replies show it) on a very emotive and serious issue. You are quite simply a time waster.

      Reply
    • Thanks for expanding Colm. I know of two taxi drivers who have killed themselves due to financial stress(I’m not a taxi driver, and don’t know many of them, so thats quite a high percentage of the taxi drivers I know). I know another man who committed suicide after he lost his job and fell into arrears etc. So I don’t think we can actually compare the desperations, and say, ‘Yeah but this desperation is worse than that desperation’. So I really don’t see it as cheapening the trauma of unwanted pregnancy. Suicidal people, are suicidal people. Of course, you allude to a very important fact, and that is help and support being available for people who are suicidal, whatever their circumstance. However, we still have not dealt with the logic yet. What we have is the assertion that an unwanted pregnancy means that a persons threat of suicide is somehow different to another persons threat of suicide. Why is it, that a person who is feeling suicidal on account of a financial dead end, advised to seek help and support, but a person feeling suicidal on account of unwanted pregnancy granted an abortion as a remedy? If threat of suicide is grounds for abortion, it will be the only circumstance that I know of, where something that is illegal, will be legalised for you on threat of suicide. On any other circumstance, it seems the logic is ‘Seek help, support, counselling’ etc, yet the rules change with pregnancy. Does this seem logical?

      Reply
    • Irish Red, thanks for your input. Does this mean that you also have an answer to my ‘stupid question’ but are just not willing to give it?

      Reply
    • Colm 18/12/12 #

      @ James, Well any suicide is undoubtedly tragic, no matter the circumstances. We know of the causes as to why a woman would take her own life if the fetus were a consequence of rape. It’s a reminder of a brutal incident. Do you know why the taxi drivers took their lives? Like I said, financial difficulty is stressful in Ireland, but there’s always a way out. How do you counsel a woman who wants to end her life because she can’t end a pregnancy? What other remedy would you offer?

      Actually, I am sorry over my inital comment. The Spanish government did stop the evictions of property owners over a number of people comitting suicide in the last few months. Though without basing it on facts, I can’t think that the social protection in Spain would be on any comparison to that of Ireland.

      Reply
    • @Colm. Firstly, fair play for having some class in relation to your initial post. Be assured it was forgotten about after your second reply anyway.

      As for the suicides, the taxi men felt there was no hope for them due to the decimation of their industry. So it was financial strain leading to anxiety and depression. The amount of suicidal people who state their financial situation as a cause is really increasing in these times. I remember looking at The Frontline last year too, and it was stated that suicide is a real threat in the taxi industry these days. One of the great issus with suicide, is that many simply don’t talk about how bad their state of mind is. For many of those close to the victims of suicide, the suicide itself is unfortunately the first indication they’ve ever had as to how bad things were.

      Before I continue to deal with suicide in relation to pregnant women, you have been talking about threat of suicide due to pregnancy after rape. Is this the only circumstance you believe threat of suicide should lead to the granting of abortion? Or are you saying this is the only time that a pregnancy would cause a woman to be suicidal?

      Reply
    • Colm 18/12/12 #

      @ james, I would consider the case of rape the most recurring cause, but the United Nations and the World Health Organization allow for termination of a pregnancy due to suicidal thoughts caused by rape, incest, social issues, or economic issues. I guess there would be many more factors which come under the mental well-being of the mother, and that these would be the tip of the iceberg. There’s also the argument that abortions themselves lead to suicide, and that’s true. There are published studies by unbiased European universities, so there’s no real answer.

      In regards to the financial, there’s the risk of suicide in any industry. The first image in my mind were scenes during the Great Depression where financial analysts were throwing themselves out of building windows. Similarly to taxi drivers, there have been a lot of employees who have left the banking sector due to discrimination. Today we have safety nets for these people, various protective measures to choose from.

      I’ll admit it’s always sad when people think suicide is the only option open to them, but in cases of an unwanted pregnancy, there’s not a whole amount of options to choose from. That’s why I would always advocate for the freedom to choose. I’m mature enough to know what’s best for me, so I would simply pass that same freedom to any woman who finds herself in this situation. And of course, if not of legal age, then her guardian.

      Reply
    • One of the things that sets a pregnancy apart from financial woes is the physical nature of it.

      Financial worries can seem like a bottomless pit but there are options. Being pregnant means massive changes to your body, possible implications to your health, and labour.. This alone can be extremely scary – it’s the kind of thing you need to prepare for, having it thrust upon you and then being told “tough – your body is undergoing these massive changes whether you like it or not” is quite different to financial burdens..

      Reply
  • This is a sad day for this country. From now on only those citizens that we decide will be protected by the state. The rest will be aborted.

    Reply
  • Enda does it again.

    What a leader, always knows whats best and minds us eejits.

    love ya Mr Kenny

    Reply
  • fudge experts

    Reply

Add New Comment