Bruton is a qualified barrister.

Very surprised to see him say this. Are there any others in the legal profession who agree with this interpretation?

Hi David

I take it John Bruton will be taking a constitutional challenge to the proposed legislation, should the Government push ahead with their promised legislation to comply with a Supreme Court ruling of 20 years ago.

One question if you don’t mind, why did John Bruton wait until now to challenge the Supreme court ruling 20 years ago?

Corrrect ivan, he is an idiot.

i’m not a fan of FG or Bruton, but he’s correct.
if i threatened to commit sucide, unless your life was ended, Ivan – think that i’d get ‘short shift’.

the Constitution protects the life of the unborn child as well as yours, Ivan.

A first year law student would also be, one would hope, gracious enough to allow any citizen, including a former head of state and barrister, to air his or her opinion on proposed changes to the law of the land. I’ve never seen such anger as here directed towards a man stating in plain terms that he foresees the passing of an unconstitutional law being by his government. Take a bleedin chill pill. If it’s all above board I’m sure the legislation will go ahead. As if it wouldn’t anyway!

@ Hippocrateeth:
sure – the …….. ahem …….. ‘pro choice’ people on this site are very intolerant of the choices of others.

i must be missing something michael, i’m not talking about the pro-choice people. seems like you’re filling in some blanks that I certainly didn’t leave. must be your own opinion. it’s not mine. i don’t, however, agree with those comment condemning the man for speaking his mind on the issue. is that alright?

Anti Choice people can jump up and down as much a ye like about Mr Bruton’s opinion and his right to air it but you guys can’t just ignore the X case. The law of the land allows for termination of pregnancy in the event of a suicide risk. That fact can’t be changed by legislation, nothing short of a referendum would do. This is a fact not an opinion. No matter how virulent you all want to be that is the undeniable case. Ignoring facts is straight out of the Anti Choice playbook but luckily enough for the women of Ireland this is one that won’t go away by ignoring it.

@ Hippocrateeth:
of course it’s MY opinion.,
but those ” condemning the man for speaking his mind on the issue” would describe themselves as being …. ahem …. ‘pro choice’
they don’t like to be labelled as ‘pro abortion’.

tuigeann tú, anois ??

Nach dtuigeann siad,

Typical ad hominem defence from the pro-aborts, attack the the person and not the argument.

Nothing new here folks.

You lads are hilarious. Ignore the X case ignore the 5k travelling every year if you wish but think about the following. We the people voted overwhelmingly in favour of allowing women to travel abroad to avail of ‘services lawfully available there’. It wasn’t the right to travel for teeth whitening lads. ie it’s lawfully available the only question is geography.

Ivan
You are making two very basic errors and being obnoxious while you’re at it. The first is that the Supreme Court have never erred in law and the second is the suggestion that no one is entitled to express their views in a Democratic State such as ours.
Well sir , how did we get to hear your opinion on the subject and on what basis would your assertions be more correct than those of a Constitutional lawyer?

Richard. You refer to my two basic errors. One that I suggested that the Supreme Court never erred in law and secondly that I suggested no one is entitled to express their views in this state. Your latter allegation is so stupidly incorrect it simply doesn’t deserve comment. Your first point shows your inability or refusal to understand basic legal concepts. Whether the SC ever erred is a matter of opinion NOT fact. It might be a fact that you have such an opinion but that does not make that opinion a fact. What is a fact is that whether you believe it to be correct or not is irrelevant, it is still the law. That you don’t like it is just a bonus and alters nothing. You further ask what makes my assertions more correct than a constitutional lawyer? Firstly I am a law graduate secondly you don’t need to have studied law to understand such basic logic. As to your comment that I expressed my opinion in an obnoxious manner all I can say is cop yourself on and grow a pair. Try and grasp the notion that believing a cat is a dog won’t make him bark. Thanks for the giggle.

I wouldn’t call someone who gave us Divorce, the criminal assets bureau and hundreds of thousands of jobs a failure.

I must have missed the part where his achievements swept him to victory in the 1997 general election so

Fine Gael’s vote rose in 1997 with 7 extra seats but Labour tanked as they always do after being in government :P

Still missing the part where his achievements swept him to victory in the 1997 general election

It’s an embarrassment to be from here at this stage. Even my British mates have stopped slagging about us being backward because I guess they figure it hits too close to home.

Niall, that’s so true, I’ve a friend from he UK and she just can’t believe what’s going on here :-(

I lived in England during the last abortion debates so all this hysteria is new to me.

Unbelievable what I see and hear now. Stick to lobbying for your IFSC pals, Bruton!

@ Katie,

And your friend from the UK ?? QC ? Constitutional Lawyer? Member of the ECJ??

Right to life issues are for all of us to decide, not just one gender.

I disagree with Bruton’s views but he’s perfectly entitled to them.

The trouble with Bruton’s view is that he is presenting it as fact, not his personal view.

No “john the baptist “,a normal, sane, resonable person just like the most of us.

don’t worry niall you’ll be as cool as your british friends soon. poor baby. imagine. us. poor stupid Irish. engaged in a national debate. the thickos on one side with no clue about what constitutes a life and the enlightened on the other, who know exactly what constitutes a life. and the even more enlightened who know that what constitutes a life doesn’t even matter in this case. there’s one right side and one wrong side. most definitely.

Did you send the first few lines of that message by telegram?

Ha, scrolling down to read other comments and I red thumb myself, Journal, please move the thumbs!!! :-p

How does me saying that I gave myself a red thumb earn red thumbs?? Get a life people lol!!

“quoting from a constitution that was never used to protect the women and children sent to magdalene laundries…”

so you’re saying we should continue to disregard the constitution like the ruling class did in the past since that had such a great outcome (women and children sent to laundries). Do I understand you correctly or are you just mental?

So because whoever was responsible for not upholding the constitutional human rights of those women and children failed to do so, we should wrest our revenge on the unborn now instead of trying to actually change something and follow the constitution? sweet logic, I’ll take 3.

Why would a party that’s in favour of gay marriage tell people it’s against gay marriage?

Maybe because they’re a party of proven liars.

David can Non gay people enter into a civil partnership [as distinct from registry office marriages] just like gay people. don’t think so. Discrimination.

Since when did you or the rest of FG start using the constitution Mr Bruton?

Yes Barry that maybe your opinion but it doesn’t change the fact that Te Constitution makes both the unborn child and the woman carrying it equal, to change it would require a referendum.

Carl, that same clause in the constitution says that abortion is permitted in the case of suicide.. And despite having two opportunities to remove it from the constitution the people said no and left it there.. I think it’s Mr Bruton and yourself who are ignoring the constitution and the referenda that shaped it.

@Carl, it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution, and part of the way they have interpreted the 8th amendment is the X case. So the only way to remove the suicide clause from the X case is via a referendum, which they tried and failed to do twice. Until then they are required to legislate, unfortunately unlike other countries, we don’t have a time-frame in which our legislators are required draft constitutional legislation. So we have had 20 years of the government ignoring their duty to legislate because the constitution disagrees with their own personal views.

“If a mother kills herself the baby dies- end of.”

This should be qualified with a statement regarding the baby’s gestational age. Unborn babies over a certain age can be taken from the womb of a recently dead or dying mother and can, and have, gone on to lead normal, healthy, lives. Also, with medical advances moving at such a steady pace there is no reason to believe that the viable age of a baby that could survive outside of the biological mother’s womb will not continue on its current path and get younger and younger rendering your apparently sole qualifying point of what sanctifies life important enough to be defended completely useless.

If I understand your point correctly you claim the baby does not have an equal status to the mother due to its inviability in the absence of such medical intervention. If this is correct then your subsequent point where you support a postpartum child’s right to life is moot as it could certainly not live in the absence of its mother’s care without intervention, which could be provided by anyone capable of feeding and emotionally supporting a child.

Ah – so let a woman kill herself because she would rather be dead than pregnant, but make sure the foetus survives..
See? It’s never really about equality, it’s about granting foetuses a special set of rights that no one else gets. The right to live inside another human being without their consent..

And John Bruton studied Constitutional Law where exactly?

@ Shanty Om
you say -
“Right, so remind me again who you are to tell a woman that she must allow another being live off her for 9 months?”

i don’tt know what stage of life you’re at now, but you certainlly survived the unborn stage of your life, where you were fortunate to live off another human being for 9 months.
lucky for you – you were protected from the abortionist.

Is that the best argument you can come up with?
My mother is pro choice, but she planned to have me thanks very much. If she hadn’t have wanted me then I would hate to think that I lived off her for 9 months against her wishes.. But I guess I just have a little more respect for my mother..

Bruton is correct, if a woman threatens to kill herself then Absoutly every treatment and help should be given to help and protect her …. Why should a law of a country that is protecting all life be changed for a few ((no matter how unfortunate, sad, or tragic they may be and there are many many unfortunate, sad tragic reasons)). Ireland is no different anymore to any other country in the world and these new laws will be abused and misused just look at England America Canada… That’s not what any ones wants

That doesn’t stop people in the columns , on any matter.
Anyway he is wrong .Mr. Justice McCarthy , in the X case said that the mother was a life in being an the unborn a life contingent. Clearly , the “contingency” envisaged is not confined to the wellbeing of the mother.

It is the MEDIA which needs to change.

I do not want to see or hear Graybo, Mary O’Rourke, Nora Owen on air for a long, long time

The Supreme Court has already ruled on it. The public have been asked to overturn that ruling twice, and twice the answer has been No.

I don’t know why we’re still discussing this.

I imagine there is still ongoing debate on this issue due to the quite obvious fact that a state by its essential nature is in a constant state of flux with regard to its laws and governance. Constantly evolving and often differing opinions of the citizens necessitate such a system of constant scrutiny and change to it’s laws and policy. Once we stop examining we become obsolete and whorish. Like a big Mac.

Bruton is fully aware of the contents of the constitution anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. This is a manipulation of public opinion and a means by which FG can be seen as tackling the tragedy of Savita’s death and yet maintaining their anti choice stance…quick get somebody else to challenge it then we will take the challenge on board and be forced to remove the suicide clause etc…tweak here and there and throw it back under the carpet until the next tragedy…

‘His view holds no legal authority” – presumably because it differs from your own?….
His view is hugely respected, by many Irish people.

@ Zoe Daly, no his view, like my own, is the view of a private citizen. Whether you or I like it or not, the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the interpretation of the Constitution.

I was disappointed in the quality of Mr. Bruton’s analysis. It was excessively influenced by the desired and preformed conclusion.

You’re off the mark here. It was no secret that Bruton was the Fine Gael leadership’s preferred candidate for the 2011 Presidential Election and would have been selected if he had put himself forward. However he turned them down saying that he wasn’t interested in the role because it was too limiting.

Except ignoring suicide. Which is as important as any other threat to a pregnant woman’s life. Not only this, but the Irish people voted to keep the suicide clause in, twice.
He can by all means express his opinion, but he has been selective with his facts almost to a point of dishonesty. That would be my issue with what he has said. I respect his right to free speech, but that does not make him immune from having his argument dismantled.

@ Shanti Om
you say – “Except ignoring suicide.” !!!
wrong – suicide should not be ignored – all possible treatment should bve given, irrespective of whether the person is pregnant or not..

@Shanti Om Those of us who listened to the recent hearings in the Oireachtas ( in Ireland!) heard that
1. Abortion is not a treatment for suicide
2. You cannot predict suicide in anyone.

You say you listened but all you heard was the Life institute twisting words..

If a woman says that she would rather be dead than pregnant – then the pregnancy is the cause of her suicidal intent, remove the cause and the symptoms (suicidal ideation) disappear.
If a woman is suicidal because she has mental health issues and not because of the pregnancy then obviously abortion will have no impact whatsoever on her ideation – and this is the great weasel wording of the Life institute at play, no, abortion is not a cure for generalised suicidal ideation, not nobody ever said it was..

@ Shanti
you say -
“If a woman says that she would rather be dead than pregnant – then the pregnancy is the cause of her suicidal intent, remove the cause and the symptoms (suicidal ideation) disappear.”

well- if you were threatening suicide, unless my life was terminated, you should be given all availabe treatment,
but sorry – i don’t think that my life shouldt be terminated, in order to remove the “cause” of your ……. ahem ……”suicidal intent”
sorry about that, Shanti Om.

Right, so remind me again who you are to tell a woman that she must allow another being live off her for 9 months? That she must carry that baby that she does not want, experience all the changes and the labour?
Are you going to compensate her somehow for the physical, mental and emotional toll this places upon her or is it just enforced slavery?

they’re not pro choice because they dont offer a choice to the unborn life , call them pro abortionists , thats what they are.

How can you offer a choice to something that is not capable of sentient thought?
And is it not supremely arrogant of you to presume that you know what the foetus wants? It can’t possibly know so how do you?
On the other hand there’s a living, breathing human being, who would never be granted the right to forcibly compel another to sacrifice their body for them temporarily (possibly changing them indefinitely), and their bodily autonomy you would gladly deny..
Perhaps instead of speaking for foetuses who can’t even think, you should listen to the woman?

@maire says you cannot predict suicide in someone, better tell all those medical practitioners falsely diagnosing patients as being suicidal…silly doctors. Better still lets not preempt anything because nothing is certain…and now the sky is falling.

@michael…time to head back up that mountain as this world is just too simple for you.

@Freebies…why hide your identity, are you afraid to be associated with crackpot statements or what?

Nice avatar Carl…pretty much sums you up.

Carl , most of them are the same people posting under different identities .

@ Freebies ireland and Carl…and you hide your real identities because…?

Freebies, have you heard the one about the pot and the kettle?

Pro-choicers react to idiocy, lest more idiots believe the original idiot until the whole world is stupid!

we will listen to you then Gareth (idiot)

@si… Why do you express such contempt towards a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body. I wonder if men were the ones becoming pregnant and rape etc would these regulations even be discussed. Who are you to interfere in another’s life, if this is an uncontrollable compulsion of yours why not foster children in genuine need of love and care or work in a third world country and help save the lives of children already born one of whom will be dead by the time you’ve finished reading this post, because they don’t have clean water. If you are genuine you should save them, they need you. Or are those little tiny tiny babies not the same…why? Because they’re in another country, why should that get in the way this is a matter of life or death. The truth is this is not about babies, this is about women controlling their own bodies and making their own choices.

I agree Maire, – the pro choicers are seriously rattled, by John Bruton speaking the truth.
Brings to mind the words of George Orwell;
”In a time of deceit, – to speak the truth is a revolutionary act”

Zoe …time of deceit, the truth?? The only deceit is your self deceit. The TRUTH is Ireland already has abortion and many who have had abortions the abortions happen in another jurisdiction ….there is a Big Brother analogy to be made, but you are on the dark side of the argument.

The truth is that the unborn child is still a HUMAN BEING – & still deserves some form of recognition, respect & protection, under our Laws.
That truth seems to be unbearable to some people.
John Bruton is a man of integrity, decency & intellect, & his views will carry some weight.

@ Zoe Daly, to describe a foetus as a human being Is tendentious as well as incorrect. The foetus has the potential to develop into a human being. The four majority Supreme Court judgments have legal authority and were considered after extensive legal argument and analysis. Mr. Bruton is entitled to disagree with the Supreme Court judges, he has a different view, but his short article shows a a lack of even rudimentary understanding of the principles of Constitutional interpretation.

The late Niall McCarthy was a truly gifted judge. His view has authority and was the culmination of a considered, objective and impartial process.

In the case of Mr. Bruton, he has a sincere and passionate view but so passionate that it has beguiled him into an incorrect line of reasoning and invalid method of interpretation.

@Zoe, the truth is a foetus is not a human being because the foetus is unable to exist with out the life-support from the mother therefore without the mothers consent the foetus is unviable. The mother usually quite joyfully wants to complete HER pregnancy (not our) and will love her newborn baby with her entire being, like no one else will EVER love that child. But sometimes circumstances prevent the mother from continuing with her pregnancy, for reason best known to herself, this woman needs support and if she feels suicidal because of the pregnancy how dare any of Irelands many bigots and holy mary’s decide what is best for that woman. You pious cretins have caused enough damage in this country already. Maybe we should get the old laundries up and running again for these ‘damaged’ women, as it seems you are still intent on denying women the right to make choices for themselves. SHAME ON YOU.

It maybe 2013 but the same narrow little (tiny, tiny, tiny) mindset still exists as did in the 50s and 60s and you and your ilk are pushing that agenda, control, control control, You mentioned George Orwell, ha what an interesting observation to make…take a good look in the mirror. And let other people live their own lives without your pious hawking in their business.

@ Pat,

In relation to abortion I have no strong feelings either way but like yourself i don’t trust the various arms of the state, and with good reason. The constitution is there to protect us from bad short term or populous decisions made by these people. What has happened here is that the change made in this case was not specific enough and despite all the bleating supreme court judgements can be challenged. Most of the tweeters here are driven by emotion and believe that speaking out strongly against anyone with a differing view than their own carries some legal weight. John Bruton is pointing out that this is unravelling. What pro abortion campigners believed was set in stone is looking shaky under challenge and no amount of passion changes that

The was one vote on the 8th amendment. There have been two votes since to try and remove the suicide clause and they both failed. If anything should be revisited its the 8th amendment.

Someone calling themselves John The Baptist. says “I have no strong feelings either way” & “pro abortion campigners”

Seems legit.

Anti-choicers can’t even tell the truth when it comes to their own feelings on the matter it seems.

John the Baptist, religious name and a religious image used as your avatar and you “claim” to not have strong views either way? Pull the other one,

@ Niall & Barry,

Typical Play the man not the ball and by the way J De B was jewish.
Anyway let me re-itterate I have no strong feelings either way on abortion. I believe it’s a convienent distraction from the real issues affecting this state. But i do believe in the constitution and it’s purpose and should not be ammended except in exceptional circumstances. But no, in order to appease both sides we put in an ammendment that is vague open to interpratation and the supreme court decision will be challenged should we attempt to legislate for abortion on the basis of suicide. I for one have listened to the debate and You guys can huff and puff all you like but your passion founders on the rocks of the law and you have a worthy adversory in Caroline Simons of the anti abortion ( yes i said it) brigade. If the best that you can put up against her is what I’ve seen so far in the media well then we will wait another decade to resolve this.

“J De B was jewish”

Where did anyone say he was otherwise?

Sounds to me like you’re a bit defensive on the religion front, not surprising as only the true hardline anti-choicers use terms like pro-abortion, which is where you give yourself away.

@ Niall,

What can i say. Like all liberal fundamentalists it’s your way or no way.

The only thing keeping abortion illegal does is make it unsafe. We have abortion in Ireland, we just sweep it under the carpet and let another country deal with it. Women order pills online and put themselves at risk of complications by self medicating.
So you would prefer to ignore reality, ignore the results of not one but two democratic decisions, ignore the 4000 women travelling per year and goodness knows how many going elsewhere or using unverifiable drugs from the Internet, ignore the risks to already born women.. Because truly once that foetus is born you don’t care about it.

“At conception when the egg is fertilised by sperm it becomes a tiny (very,very tiny ) baby”

Actually, it’s not at all. That is just not true. The fused sperm and egg has to implant. If the woman has not got a developed endometrium layer to accept implantation, is that murder too? Have an aul read of a biology book, might be enlightening.

Benny,

Stop trying to make things into something they are not,

“At conception when the egg is fertilised by sperm it becomes a tiny (very,very tiny ) baby. ”

So by your explanation this means the morning after bill is also abortion, not only is your comment completely inaccurate but even if it is implanted its called a fetus…not a baby.

If your going to say stuff then please stick to facts and science and stop trying to twist stuff to your so called pro life agenda,

Benny

What happens to the “tiny (very,very tiny ) baby”, should the mother commit suicide? How do we deal with the deaths of two and not one? Will you yourself provide the support, both financial and emotional, that the surviving relatives so badly need?

I have never been in the position to have to face this decision and I pray I never will. I don’t know how I would react should my wife or any of my children have to face this question. But one thing I do know is I will never consider any measures that my wife and children take to save their own life as being murder.

Just like I do not consider the decision extended family members have had to take in allowing the medical termination of their miscarrying child as murder.

I suppose in the end I must not be as good a christen as you.

No it doesn’t it becomes a blastocyst, a simple clump of cells. Get your facts right…oh that’s right facts don’t come into it!

Barry, the morning after pill doesnt work if you’re pregnant. So no matter how you spin it it’s not abortion.

well said Benny and james

shanti .. nobody is sweeping anything under the carpet , I’ve heard shatter & others make similar remarks about how we are passing so called problems onto another country so I would like to challenge this now .

The protection of life is never a problem , if women travel abroad then the real problem lies with the destination country and not with us , in fact we and other countries that protect life and the rights of unborn are the ‘solution’ to the problem , the problem is ‘abortion’ .

And yet again you ignore some pretty important facts.
The people voted to permit travel for this purpose.
The people voted for access to Information on abortion services abroad.
The people voted to keep the suicide clause in, twice.
The government were happy to legislate for the first two as it was a handy get out of jail free card, the last one they avoided purely out of NIMYB..

What do you think making abortion illegal does exactly? Do you think it prevents abortions? The only thing that prevents abortions is not getting pregnant in the first place, making them illegal just makes them unsafe and puts women’s lives at unnecessary risk. Say that you are speaking up for life all you want but really it’s just a deep seated desire to force others to live by your rules.

Well said Benny, Exactly what I would say myself…

Is that the same Britain where most of Irelands abortions are currently carried out, oh look Yes it is!

Who’s living in space Freebies…what ever your secret name is…shhhh.

This must be the worst written post so far.
For heaven’s sake, man, check your spelling and syntax before posting. When I read a post I hope the author has put some thought into it: yours is just a rant.

Keep your religious views out of legal decisions – you don’t want abortion to be available? Don’t have one! And if you think it’s anything to do with your religion how about looking at that religion and the acts performed/carried out by it’s believers/practitioners and see if you can hold your head up high. The main religious group in this country has repeatedly put women and children very far down on the list of priorities – we’re non-entities in the view of the Catholic Church in terms of rights and protections, as we all know. The choice of keeping abortion illegal, in any instance, is basically your Male-centric religion and traditions trying to keep control, not protect the child, your religion Does Not Protect Children… So stop pretending you give a sh!t about them and admit you are afraid of the loss of influence your religion is starting to experience.

God isn’t pro life. Try reading your bible.. God is into infanticide and ripping pregnant women apart.
In fact – god aborts babies every day, perhaps the worlds most prolific abortionist, so to attempt to use religious beliefs as a reason for opposing abortion is, at best, founded upon ignorance of the contents of your holy book.

Stopped reading as soon as God was mentioned

Shanti…interesting perspective to throw at the anti choice lobby, hmmm how will this be explained away…oh right it wont be…it will just be ignored by the right wing religious…because it just messes with everything. Lol…

I always say religion has no place in this debate anyway, but when one examines their case, they base it upon flimsy pieces of scripture vs the number of passages revealing that their god kills men, women, children and foetuses almost on a whim.
And if we are to believe that everything is part of this mythical beings “plan” then he is aborting pregnancies every day – whether the woman wanted the baby or not.
To try and use the god argument in this debate ends up working against any real efforts on the anti choice side, it is the empty vessel making the most noise..

I was talking to God a few minutes ago. He is pondering the Papal succession, he told me, but said that he did did not wish to interfere in the Irish legislative process at the moment.

He did say however that he was concerned about the welfare of pregnant women and until a human is guilty of original sin, it is not human and original sin only happens at birth.

He also told me that he was opposed to child abuse, clerical and otherwise. He said that when he said suffer the little children , he did not have child abuse in mind.

By the way, however unlikely you think what I am saying is literally true, you cannot prove that I am fibbing. God talks to sinners and I am a real sinner.