Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
SENATOR CATHERINE NOONE has described a booklet about next week’s Eighth Amendment referendum as an attempt to “fool” voters.
Some critics have argued that the booklet, entitled Your Guide to the Referendum – Information on the Government’s Proposals, intentionally resembles a government publication.
Some 200,000 copies of the booklet have been distributed throughout the country by pro-life group Save the 8th, which is targeting areas where there are large numbers of undecided voters.
The document states that a Yes vote would mean “unborn babies at all stages of pregnancy will have no constitutional rights” and that voters “will never have a say on this again”.
When asked about the booklet today, Noone said she was “very concerned” by it, “especially if it’s an attempt to somehow make it seem as though it is information from the government”.
“In terms of the overall poster campaign, the general messaging of the No side, I would think that this is just another example of the attempt to somewhat … blur the lines and the facts and the evidence.
That is not helpful to Irish people, it’s an attempt to actually blindside them and fool them, and I don’t think that that is in any way respectful of voters.
Noone, who chaired the Oireachtas Eighth Amendment Committee, is in favour of a Yes vote.
Responding to Noone’s comments, Save the 8th spokesperson Abigail Malone said: “If Senator Noone had read the leaflet she’d see that it in no way blurs lines. It sets out, much clearer than her government, what is actually in the legislation.”
Malone said that Save the 8th is “transparent” and denied that the booklet’s green colour was an attempt to make voters think the material was from the government.
“We are not blurring the lines. If anything, the government and campaigners for the Yes side are blurring the lines.
“If Senator Noone and Minister [Simon] Harris and the government are that concerned, we’d ask them to point out where they think the lines have been blurred and debate that,” she said.
On 25 May people will have the chance to vote on whether or not the Eighth Amendment, which gives equal constitutional status to the mother and the unborn, should be repealed.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
You’d never catch Leo and Catherine scaremongering of course
@kevin: listen to the pregnant women who are having a tough time on the In Her Shoes page. At least take them into account when voting.
@kevin: “I worked in the abortion theatre, I’ll never forget what I saw”. – Noel Patrún, Not a Nurse
@Karen Wellington: Considering it’s a protected title it’s actually a criminal offence to misrepresent yourself as a nurse. I’m surprised he hasn’t been charged..
@Vigo The Carpathian: are you telling us you aren’t a carpathian then???? Is nothing sacred vigo?
@kevin: Hardly a protected title now is it.
@kevin:
Yes side in panic mode meltdown.
Fine Gael know that if this referendum is defeated it will signal the end of their party in government. They’ve turned the referendum into a nasty smear campaign of lies and innuendo.
Catherine Noone and Leo are doing a great job for the No campaign with their dirty tactics.
@Morgan Freeman:
All referenda put government under scrutiny particularly ones in which government have invested so heavily.
@Morgan Freeman:
No need for the unparliamentary language there.
@Karen Wellington: wheres Claire Malone gone? Her Amnesty/Abortion international sob story last half a day before being discredited by her own blog from the time.
Yes panicking big time.
@eric nelligan: latest video from bob geldof urging a yes vote could tip the balance in favor of no. I hope they keep the political scaremongering and celebrity endorsements coming…
@kevin:
Bob did the Brexiteers a great service, him and Enda, great news for the No side he’s decided to stick his beak in again.
@Scott Peterson: The Yes side isn’t the one releasing booklets of lies now is it.. In fact despite the blatant manipulation of the thumb count here the yes side is quite comfortably ahead. 1/4 for repeal in a two horse race. Guess you can manipulate the thumbs here but in the real world the odds are looking pretty grim for the NO campaign. In fact short of flipping 70% of all undecided voters it’s looking like they’re dead in the water. Besides who wants to wake up next Sunday week to the likes of Ronan Mullen and Iona padding around the place like well fu#ked pumas while Irish women have to take themselves abroad to recieve proper health care.
@Vigo The Carpathian:
The people will decide.not the bookies. You probably heavily invested in a Hilary victory and Britain remaining in the EU…..How did that go for you then?
@Vigo The Carpathian: the Yes booklets is full of the handful of hard cases. No facts, no honest truths,
No mention of child or abortion.
Let’s try keep the public oblivious to what abortion brings…
If we hit the same level of abortions as UK prepare for 16000 or so annually.
@eric nelligan: If it’s so full of lies you should have no problem posting a few..
@eric nelligan: Whether we vote no or vote yes, abortions are still going to happen, whether that will be in Ireland or the UK. 1 difference is due to our restrictive laws and cost of travel, Irish women tend to have abortions later than those who live in the UK. 1/3 of Irish abortions are carried out at 10 weeks compared to 1/5 of UK women. Liberalising abortion laws here would mean abortions are carried out earlier.
By voting no, Pro Lifers are actually advocating & ensuring the practice of late term abortions will continue.
@Scott Peterson: I called Trump winning. In fact I’d money on it. The bookies odds aren’t subject to sentiment, they will shorten if the reality of the situation changes.They shortened dramatically in the days before the Brexit referendum as well. By the way Clinton did win the popular vote . What they didn’t factor in was the now established “Russian interference”. I did. Hows and ever if the bookies are only half as wrong about this referendum as they were about the US election the No side will take an awful hammering all together because guess what Peaches , we live in a country where each vote actually counts..
@mur: Those sluts must be punished isn’t that right ?
Read some of the stories on that pg in her shoes and to be honest a lot showed me that they were forced or convince by parents.
Such a shame.
Most however were just for lifestyle choice.
So saddened to see the one where the mother was expecting triplets and chose to abort one but had to go to Spain, ended up losing all three,
that was the most shocking and saddest I read,
stopped shortly after that.
I find this whole campaign disrespectful, from both sides. People need to cop on and realise we live in a democracy. This is not about backing the winning side, it’s a difficult decision we’re making here and all I’m seeing is disrespect for democracy and people . FROM BOTH SIDES!
@Scott Peterson: Yes, and with the help of Dr. Peter Boylan and his military wing (and sister-in-law) Rhona Mahony who is so agressive in her delivery, she would almost perform an abortion in an interview.
@eric nelligan: So in 2016 there were 63,900 live births recorded in Ireland. Approx 3,500 women travelled to the UK that year for an abortion. That’s approx 67,400 pregnancies & approx 1 in 19 were terminated.
Eric Nelligan would have you believe that, that figure will jump from 1/19 to 1/4, which is in fact higher than the disputed UK figure of 1/5.
Now if that’s not scaremongering from the ‘No’ side, I don’t know what is. You must have absolutely 0% faith in the women of Ireland. Shame on you!!
@JMac: AFEW hard nosed women we will voter repeal.
@JMac:
Rhona Mahony is on a nice little earner in the new children’s hospital too with her private practice located in the public building……all paid for by the taxpayer of course.
@JMac: jaysus, health care professionals strongly advocating for better health care! What is the world coming to? Or should they just sit down and shut up like pregnant women?
@EDun: What about the rights of the child in the womb,he or she did not ask to come into this world,but as they are now here they have rights as well
@James Mc Loughlin: human rights are granted at birth. Seems harsh but that’s when human rights begin. Our own Supreme Court ruled on that recently too.
Why not put their names on the front then? Running scared? Should be. #repeal
@Nicolol: They actually are at this stage as it sinks in that there’s simply not the time or the numbers for them to make up the ground. They can throw all the insults they want but the numbers just aren’t there..
@Nicolol: I notice the No side left out the Fact that they hate Irish women in their booklet.
@A Piece of Chalk: getting desperate now. You sound like Leo
@A Piece of Chalk: Is that you Deborah?
@kevin: Hey the No side are the ones that wanted a 14 year old rape victim arrested during the X case if she was found to be boarding an aircraft to the UK. The No are the ones who want women with a FFA diagnosis to travel to the UK for basic medical care. The No side saw nothing wrong with strapping a raped refugee to a bed until her pregnancy came to term and then cutting the baby from her.And they’re only the highlights that come to mind. As Donald “Duck” Dunne once said : “If the sh#t fits , wear it…”
@Vigo The Carpathian: If the Yes side was home and dry you wouldn’t be writing dozens and dozens of posts defending every ‘Yes’ argument and attacking every ‘No’ argument. Or else you simply have nothing better to do with your time.
@Vigo The Carpathian: ah come on now ..the woman was too near the 24 weeks so she had to agree to the c section..there was no other way around it .
@A Piece of Chalk: What a juvenile comment.
@A Piece of Chalk:
While you are at it, let’s blame the no side for leaving women to die of misdiagnosed and hidden results of cervical cancer. Then there is noon and refusal to help the women with the hep c scandal.
What are finegael hiding this time.
@Seamus Fitzpatrick: Im just countering the idea that the No side are going to somehow push this over the line. Consider it a “go team” to the Yes campaign incase anyone is actually buying into the negitive crap being spewed here. If I were worried I’d be getting posts removed, manipulating thumbs and posting under multiple accounts. Kinda like Iona is doing here at the moment. I’m seeing accounts associated with them from the SSM referendum being dragged out of retirement to push the message that the Yes side is on the ropes. Now that’s desperate…
@Siobhán Ni Mhurchú: They could have given her the termination long before that .. Like when she first asked for it. It’s an example of why the current legislation doesn’t work. By the time they’d assembled the panel to assess the poor girl she’d passed the threshold. They then literally tied her down until cutting into her against her original stated wishes.
@Seamus Fitzpatrick: and the no side is doing so well that’s why your doing the very same thing your complaining about??? Take a day off will u
@Seamus Fitzpatrick: or he cares about the issue just like you do.
@Vigo The Carpathian: Keep telling yourself that . If you are so confident of a Yes vote why are you spending all your time defending every yes post and attacking every no post 24/7 on journal?
@A Piece of Chalk: Name calling. Very classy. Didn’t know you were still in school?
@Vigo The Carpathian: If ‘anyone is buying into the negative crap’ why would you care? After all you keep telling everyone the Yes side are home and dry. Bye the way you seem obsessed with counting thumbs up. I detect enormous insecurity and need for validation on your part. Lol
@Nicolol: I’m not the one telling everyone the Yes side are home and dry. Here’s a tip . Next time read a comment before you reply . Lol
I’m confused as to what the problem is. The leaflet states that a yes vote removes all constitutional protection to the unborn and the electorate will never again get to vote again on this issue ….. is that not correct ???
Repealing the 8th removes all constitutional protection to the unborn.
The electorate cannot vote to veto any provision in the proposed legislation. So what the leaflet is stating is fact.
@Skipper Mac: We can have a say about it? It’s called protest and calling into your local TD.
@Skipper Mac: yes it is correct skipper
@Skipper Mac: it’s more embarrassing bluster and whinging from Noone. Her buddies took a hiding on CB the other night and she’s desperately clutching at straws now to try and make up the lost ground.
@Skipper Mac: “you retain the power to decide such matters in the future and any changes to the law will remain a matter for the people.”
We’re not getting another referendum so you don’t ‘retain the power to decide’.
Changes to any laws are a matter for legislators. Legislation is never put to the electorate vote.
@Karen Wellington: “Changes to any laws are a matter for legislators. Legislation is never put to the electorate vote.”
They are asking the electorate to change the relationship of the law to society for when the law permits the ending of life for no reason it is no longer functional but an entitlement vehicle for something else. Other countries just didn’t think the matter through enough.
@Nathan Hayes:
Like protect Irish water (thousands marched, protested and are being ignored. The constitutional protection is worth preserving with the onslaught of capitalism and the liberal agenda.
@Skipper Mac: just like we never voted before on the issue?
@Karen Wellington:
Leglislation has to be consistent with the constitution – therefore if they want legislation allowing abortion for rape incest and ffa – they will require another referendum.
Next time – adding specific grounds where it is permitted, which then allows legislation to be enacted.
Voting NO will retain that power – to prevent excessive powers being granted to the Rail – to kill healthy children, denying them a right to life, dignity, compassion and the most basic human right there is….
@HelloGoogleTracking..: true or false voting yes also allows the government to legislate for the hard cases only if they choose? True or false, if the proposed legislation were enacted in the event of a Yes win it could be changed to only include the hard cases by a subsequent government?
@HelloGoogleTracking..: what do you think the most basic human right is …?
We are not getting another go at this, that has been established. There will not be another referendum on this issue. If you vote no we’re done. It’s Repeal or Retain. You didn’t get a Replace option and you’re not going to, because this referendum will not be rerun in the foreseeable future.
jesus the yes side are really clutching at straws ,{resembles a goverment publication}
@Elvis Polkasalad: Exactly. I didn’t realise the government had a monopoly on green covered documents.
@Elvis Polkasalad: most NO collateral is pink, this is green. Booklet is titled “Your Guide to the Referendum – Information on the Government’s Proposals”. NO side have record of publishing misleading material (see “Undecided on the 8th” debacle.
It’s as clear as day what they’re up to here.
Read the booklet. I don’t see what facts they claim that are incorrect. The 1 in 5 thing could be worded to include miscarriages alright and I don’t think you could say with certainty we’ll never get a say again but it seems like they back up everything they say.
@Patric Cooney: “You retain the power to decide such matters in the future and any changes to the law will remain a matter for the people”
That bit’s not true, this is a once in a lifetime referendum, it’s now or never. Changes to any laws are a matter for legislators not ‘the people’ and if this article is still part of the constitution then no one can change the law in the future.
@Karen Wellington: it’s not a once in a lifetime referendum though. I’m in my twenties and I could definitely see another referendum in my lifetime if a No vote is passed.
I believe what they’re referring to is the fact that any changes, removal or ammendments, must be made with public approval. A Yes vote means the government can legislate without the need for a vote.
@Patric Cooney: And the false pretence of making it look like an ‘official’ document?
@Patric Cooney: ‘another referendum in my lifetime’? How many tens of thousands of Irish women will have travelled to England for an abortion by then?
@Brendan O’Brien: I don’t know if they’re trying to pass it off as impartial or make it look official to have people take it more seriously. It still doesn’t change any of the facts in it.
With regards to how many women will travel to England by then I sincerely hope as few as possible and I hope ground in made in ensuring women feel support here.
@Patric Cooney: isn’t that what the government are paid to do? Legislate?
@Brendan O’Brien: around 35,000 a decade so in 30 years time around 100,000 women will have travelled to the UK for abortions.
@Patric Cooney: won’t that be something to look forward to; a man in his 50s telling young woman what they can and can’t do with their bodies.
“A yes vote means the government can legislate without the need for a vote” ????
What do you think is happening on Saturday week? Or are you suggesting that legislators do or should put everything to a public vote?
@Karen Wellington: “That bit’s not true, this is a once in a lifetime referendum, it’s now or never. Changes to any laws are a matter for legislators not ‘the people’”
Give me an effin break my dear !, they took a gamble that the electorate wouldn’t be able to spot that willful intent to end life for no reason is being fronted by medical issues where no willful intent to end life in the womb is involved. They are playing politics with the electorate as in the past few days they have poured on the threat of jail and that ain’t compassion whatever else it is.
The Government get to decide on raising/ lowering taxes, social concerns of housing, roads, ect but the really important decisions of life and death should remain with the people and not with interest groups pressuring politicians for advantages for one section of society.
Vote No and the politicians will learn not to do this again to society and ask direct question where they are needed. Law protects life, medicine saves lives where possible but all life is sacred on this island.
@Karen Wellington: Patric is a phoney. I reckon he must have done some training in how to appear sweet and reasonable while imparting a toxic message. There’s a lot of that around these days.
@EDun: it is. But there are some rights we should keep out of their reach because government can always be corrupted or immoral. This is a fairly well recognised phenomenon which is why countries around the world have constitutions that their governments can’t touch.
@Karen Wellington: I don’t fully get what you’re saying? Correct me if I’m wrong but what’s happening Saturday week is a vote to remove something from the constitution and put what its protecting to the will of the government.
@Brendan O’Brien: Brendan I’ve been nothing but respectful on this topic and have tried to discuss facts, viewpoints, and stances. I won’t apologise that my civility gives you no reason to dismiss my message based on my character. If you’d like to contribute please feel free but I’m not going to engage any more of your focus is on my character and not the issue.
@Patric Cooney: We elect legislators; we should allow them to legislate. That’s what they’re for.
@Patric Cooney: You don’t get to dictate terms of engagement. I hope that you and your kind won’t get to dictate what women are allowed to do with their own bodies either.
@Brendan O’Brien: are you for removing all our constitutional rights as Irish citizens and allowing legislators riegn over everything? Our right to freedom of assembly, our right to freedom of association, our right to trial by jury?
@Patric Cooney: correct, and that’s as much as you can hope for when it comes to having your say. They’re not going to put individual pieces of legislation to a vote, so why suggest that they will on this issue?
@Patric Cooney: this is a good example of the mask slipping on the “compassionate” repeal side. They turn to name calling when they realize that not everyone agrees with their view. Just like brid Smyth and Mary Lou McDonald the other night
@Karen Wellington: when they say a No vote would mean we get to keep the power in deciding further changes to the law they’re correct in that any change to the 8th, removal or ammendment, would mean we as the irish people would have to approve it.
The statement isn’t false.
@Patric Cooney: immorality is subjective especially in this instance. We are not freeing our doctors to make what most would consider moral decisions within a legislative framework unless the 8th is repealed. I absolutely believe that some/many politicians are corrupt but not in this case. I believe in this case, that the government took into account experiences of pregnant women and realised the extent of the problems arising from the 8th and decided there were enough issues that warranted a referendum. For many the 12 weeks has kept them on the fence, but after reading the In Her Shoes Facebook page, which covers a lot of the grey area in this debate, I really think the 8th has to go.
@Patric Cooney: to butt in – by “the people”, we mean either referenda or dail vote, they are both democratic and just form a priority and are only time dependent. If 51% of politicians are voted on to abolish abortion, they can (as in the North). Secondly, we may be forced to legislate for abortion regardless as a result of our constitutionally endorsed membership of the ECJ, ECHR and the EU, which has found us guilty of torture in respect for forcing women to travel. It’s not like VRT where we can just pay the fine every year to break the law!
@EDun: I agree there are awful tragic cases which many may view as moral which hopefully we can reduce in future. However I think most people are seeing that these are only a small fraction of cases and would continue to be if the 8th is removed.
@Morgan Freeman: that’s about half the number of abortions that take place in the UK and Wales every year. It is estimated that abortion on demand will lead to an approx abortion rate of 13,000 per annum in Ireland. I presume this number is arrived at by imposing the UK rate on Ireland. Over a similar 30 year period that would see 390,000 lives lost. Astonishing figures by any stretch.
@Gulliver Foyle: its not practical to have a public vote on everything but it’s a better system on the big issues like this one.
I hadn’t considered those factors to be honest but I think the EU wouldn’t be foolish enough to go over the heads of the Irish people and constitution if a No vote is returned. They outcry would be immense and would turn public opinion again the EU at a time when it needs the support.
@Karen Wellington: let’s take this line by line;
“You retain the power to decide such matters in the future” – Leo has already said there won’t be a repeat referendum, this is it. You’re power to decide on this issue is restricted to referenda and we’re not getting a second go at it, so you don’t ‘retain the power to decide’.
“Any changes to the law will remain a matter for the people” – No they won’t, it will continue to be a matter for legislators, but it’s a moot point because with the 8th in place they can’t legislate.
@Patric Cooney: Britain doesn’t even have a constitution, it very rarely has a referendum, and yet it has freedom of assembly, freedom of association, the right to trial by jury, etc. Its legislators legislate. Also, its women have rights that many of our women clearly wish to emulate, as they travel there for that purpose.
In this case, our constitution positively denies rights to Irish citizens that they can exercise elsewhere.
@Karen Wellington: just because Leo says there won’t be another referendum doesn’t mean there won’t be another referendum. He won’t be Taoiseach for too long and even still I wouldn’t be surprised if he went back on his word and held a second referendum.
Changes to the law being a matter for the people is correct because only the people can decide if things change. You may view it as a matter for the legislators and it is insofar as they can put amendments to the people to vote for but it doesn’t diminish from the fact that it’s still a matter for the people.
@Patric Cooney: I won’t see another vote while I’m still young enough to be pregnant. It’s a once in a child bearing years lifetime vote.
@Karen Wellington:
Folks by saying it’s up to the legislators is invalid. We vote for the legislators, so ask them what their views are about abortion.
@Brendan O’Brien: good for the UK. They’ve managed to keep their governments in check. I still have more faith in keeping these things out of politicians reach.
You can say our constitution denies people a right, but I disagree that it’s a right.
@Sandra: and that makes the statement on the booklet untrue?
@Patric Cooney:
And isn’t that the problem. Abortion on demand is just this vote away with the liberal agenda.
@Patric Cooney: they can’t put amendments to the people, they put them before the Dáil and TD vote. Do you really believe you’ve voted on legislation ever in you life, it’s just never happened.
@Dannie Fleming: I did make the point that we elect the legislators but it’s a bit late asking them now that you’ve already voted for them and the proposed legislation has already been proposed. You can lobby your representatives to vote against it if Repeal passes, I have no idea how successful that will be.
@Karen Wellington: they can’t hold a referendum to change the wording of the 8th or add an addendum to it, or to remove it and replace it in one go?
Its still true however the the people will retain the power to decide on whether or not to remove the 8th in the future based on what the government offers as an alternative or if public attitudes change.
@EDun: I think that most politicians are corrupt but not in this case?.
Corruption has no morals or bounds.
@Patric Cooney:
If miscarriages are included it increases the abortion figure, and reduces the ratio to 1 in 4.
Miscarriages are medically defined as natural abortions – hence they are abortions.
Leaving them out makes the figure more accurate – not less accurate.
@Brendan O’Brien:
And British children have less rights than Irish children – and the end up dead as a result.
@HelloGoogleTracking..: who’s killing British children? You may be using some terms incorrectly
@Patric Cooney: the government have already established that they’re not going to ‘offer’ another referendum. This result will be their indicator for public opinion.
@Karen Wellington: “the government have already established that they’re not going to ‘offer’ another referendum. This result will be their indicator for public opinion.”
Politicians are not dictators although many have acted like it the past few weeks so they could have presented the electorate with questions on the direction our society should take. Instead they wanted it out of the hands of the electorate and are now surprised that many individuals are more engaged than they originally thought in life and death matters.
It looked like a carefully constructed plan that was going well by being biased in the extreme but this isn’t about social inclusion, this is social exclusion in the extreme where life in the womb suffers only for the crime of inconvenience or the wrong gender. Maybe people care more for the principles of law and order than they do about an entitlement culture and somehow interest groups and politicians forgot this.
@Karen Wellington: so the government of today has decided that the government of 10 years won’t offer another referendum? Or the government of 50 years or 200 years?
The people still retain the power over whether or not laws surrounding abortion are brought in. The statement is factually correct.
@Gkell1: true or false, legislation for the hard cases can only be introduced in the Eighth Amendment is repealed? True or false, subsequent governments can then change that legislation? So repeal and make the next election about abortion. Fine by me, vote in politicians that say they will reduce it to only the hard cases, go for it. That’s the only way we are going to get anything done bout the hard cases in the next 30 years
After her dismal performance on Claire Byrne show the other night she’ll grasp at any ol straw that’s going…very poor performer over the last week or so lashing out
@Frank Dubogovik: this is becoming too political. Vote based on how the 8th affects the unborn AND the mother if the pregnancy is forced to continue under nearly any circumstances. Those are things to consider.
@Frank Dubogovik: Whether you agree with her or not, she was and always is very well spoken in my view, and always operated with integrity.
@Ombudsman for Pasta: Integrity? She publicly berated an elderly priest for expressing his views in his church in her presence.
The government representatives get offended very easily. None of them are properly debating their proposals. They believe the way to win this referendum is keeping Harris off the debates and calling the no side liars constantly. However when you look at the bill been proposed it’s quite frightening and needs debating. Come on minister let’s see you defend your legislation and what is coming next. No point putting Mary Lou front and center it’s a job he must do himself.
@doorhandler: the No side have been caught out telling lies on a very large scale. Even google and Facebook stopped taking their money. What does that tell you.
Like ??
@doorhandler: where their funding cones from. Their medical credentials (which incidentally, is illegal). Statistics.
@Karen Wellington:Surely you should be focusing on what their posters say and not focusing on money. The debates i have listened to were full of statistics from the no side with the yes side agreeing or worse not knowing the facts. I’m not sure who you mean committed an illegal act perhaps you can enlighten me.
@doorhandler: impersonating at nurse is illegal. The poster are somewhat covered under the funding and statistics headings, but you make a good point; representing a six month old baby as a 6 month foetus is effectively lying.
@Morgan Freeman: You seem to know so much. Could you confirm if Google or Facebook previously received any advertising money from the Yes side?
@Karen Wellington: Maternity workers disagree with you. For both my children when we went to see the scan the doctors the nurses and the midwives told and showed us how our baby was progressing. Never once was the word foetus used.
@Morgan Freeman: they stopped both sides get the facts right!
@doorhandler: did it look like a six month old baby in the scan? A post-birth baby rather than a pre-birth baby, to use made up nonsense terms.
@doorhandler: what about the illegal activity from the no campaign, don’t you want to discuss that anymore?
@Karen Wellington: yes very much so. All the features of a human. Just a life waiting to be born.
@doorhandler: They probably didn’t use terms like echocardiography ,alphafetoprotein ,occipitoa anterior or refer to your wife as primigravida either because they want to make the whole thing sound less clinical than it actually is to them and put prospective parents at ease.
@Karen Wellington: my wife never once used the word foetus to me on our four. “Look the foetus is kicking”. Look there’s an elbow and a heel. This foetus is really active today. Ah I see you are with foetus. Here have my seat on the train. Sad attempt to dehumanise the baby but sure Yes posters don’t even mention abortion on a referendum about abortion. Why?
@Karen Wellington: if you know of any illegal activity I urge you to report it to the relevant authority.
@Vigo The Carpathian: sound less clinical and more human. Almost as though they are talking about a human, which of course they are.
@Vigo The Carpathian: They didn’t but the impression I got was it as just another baby like the 100s they see every week.
@Morgan Freeman
: that leo’s ready to do a tax write off
@doorhandler: I’m not sure I believe you have children if you think a 6 month old looks remotely like a foetus. Even the physical difference between 3 month old and 6 month are incredibly obvious.
@doorhandler: do you not know about the illegal activity employee by the no campaign?
Well here’s what happened; they hired a hospital porter to impersonate a nurse. The essence of the scam was to pretend that he had experience as theatre nurse and had assisted in surgical abortion (that’s abortion performed after 12 weeks so only applies to FFA, threat to life of the woman, rape, incest, basically all those cases the no side claim to sympathise with but don’t really). Then his job was to tell the public about his ‘experience’ with harrowing lies.
You’d wonder why they need to resort to such invention but I suppose their’s no accounting for what desperate people will do.
Yes side were terrible in the debate certainly would make me reconsider my decision – know others thinking same
@Si Byrne: or you could just research and verify both sides of the argument?
@EDun: I was going to do this anyway – my point is the yes side were unconvincing to say the least in the debate
@Si Byrne: the Yes side were pretty poor alright. It was a bad environment of boos, cheers and clapping. Rubbish for any undecided. The No side is pretty clear cut, protect the life from day 1. The Yes side deals with health of those women slowly miscarrying, the Hard Cases (as they have become known), and the women who have decided for financial, personal health, or domestic reasons to not continue with pregnancy and are travelling to the uk or purchasing pills online currently. Not easy to get the Yes reasons on a poster!
@EDun:
The problem is the yes side have no arguments except very poor ones:
1. Hard cases – yes these are real, and should be tackled by a constitutional amendment allowing for legislation on those grounds. Also hard cases make up less than 2% of abortions in UK.
2. Abortion already happens – yes and so does rape, and murder, and speeding and fraud and drug taking etc – those are not reasons to make all those things legal. Also abortion is legal in UK, and illegal abortion pills are still used – making it legal does not stop this.
3. Trust women / Compassion / Healthcare – many women are against abortion, Compassion is also due for the unborn child, and healthcare does not include ending healthy life.
4. they have nothing else…….
innocent healthy unborn children ,
@Elvis Polkasalad: children? It’s bad enough when you misuse the term ‘baby’ when talking about a foetus or embryo.
Do you not understand the discussion or do you worry that using accurate language might weaken your point?
@Elvis Polkasalad: as opposed to 12 year old women
@Karen Wellington: congratulations honey we are having a foetus , come onn , is that what you told your partner or family
@Dave O Keeffe: 2 wrongs dont make a right ,
@Elvis Polkasalad: yes, I suspect your parents are living proof of that maxim.
@Elvis Polkasalad: I usually referred to mine as chest-bursters to my family and friends, and as a foetus when speaking with my doctors (I didn’t see any medical professionals during the embryonic stages on either) partly because I didn’t know if they’d share my sense of humour and party because we were discussing something important and accuracy was, and still is, important. I never referred to them as in utero children.
@Karen Wellington: porkys
@Paul Fahey: my parents only died in a car crash 2 months ago ,
@Elvis Polkasalad: a lot of your family members seem to have met untimely ends. Perhaps the Gardaí (or whatever they call the police in the country you operate from) should investigate.
@Elvis Polkasalad: eh, the same side are responsible for both mischaracterisations.
@Karen Wellington:
If the unborn is human – and has 2 parents and is alive it is a child.
By the definition of a child – “an unborn or recently born person” or “a son or daughter of human parents”
Merriam-webster dictionary – first google result.
@HelloGoogleTracking..: so you’re saying you yourself are a child?
@HelloGoogleTracking. she knew what i was saying
@Karen Wellington:
Yes I am the child of my parents, you are the child of your parents.
And the unborn human is also the child of their parents .
You remain a child of your parents at any age – look up a dictionary and stop asking silly questions after being given clear answers
I don’t understand why Ms. Noone’s opinion is any more valid than that of anyone else. She is unelected by the electorate. Yet she appears to be a go to person for the liberal media. Vote no to keep the peoples law for fundamental rights in the peoples hands. Do not allow unelected people like Ms. Noone blind you on this issue.
@Jeremy DeChad: “vote no to keep the people’s law for fundamental rights in the people’s hands”
I think you meant vote yes for that statement to make any sense.
@Jenni Harrison: abortion is not fundamental
@Joe Mc: healthcare is
@Dave O Keeffe: that’s if you consider the deliberate and intentional ending of another’s life healthcare.
@Dave O Keeffe: abortion is not healthcare either. Pregnancy is. Abortion is a choice that ye want to make legal
@Jeremy DeChad:
Miss No ones opinion should be private unless she has canvassed her constituents and got a mandate from a majority. But that would be democratic and right.
@Dave O Keeffe:
Healthcare does not include ending life – healthcare is about protecting life.
Abortion is not healthcare for the child.
If FFA then yes for the mother, and everyone agrees – but this is not an argument for abortion on demand.
It is an argument for a constitutional amendment to allow abortion under specific grounds.
Didn’t the government, categorically state that there would not be another referendum on this? Didn’t this very publication, in it’s own fact check, state that removal of the 8th amendment would remove the last remaining rights of the unborn in the constitution. Assuming both these credible sources, cough cough, are right, then what untruth is contained in that booklet? (Purely based on what has been written above). In reality there could easily be a second referendum, it was easily done when we rejected the Nice treaty! If you are not happy about the proposed bill for abortion on demand and no limit set in stone. Then reject it and vote NO. This is the only reason I’m voting against repeal.
The government will run another, don’t worry. The yes side have already stated they wont accept a no vote. If they truly care about the hard cases they can try again without abortion on demand. Then it will pass
@: If you really believe there’s going to be another referendum and that it will pass you should probably just vote Yes to this one and save us all the hassle of this hypothetical second referendum…PS. There will be a limit of twelve weeks for abortion on demand but you already know that don’t you…
@: Leo said yesterday that there won’t be another referendum
@Vigo The Carpathian: I have zero faith that limit will not be further extended. The politicians lost all credibility when they all had such dramatic changes of heart on the topic after the opinion polls were released. They would do it to the yes side if it gained them more political points. And now they want us to allow them to legislate on our behalf? Abortion on demand doesn’t sit with me either. Rape, incest, FFA, and even slightest risk to mother’s life, no questions. Even if there is a heartbeat. Not because it doesn’t suit you
@: It is more than just the ending of life for no reason, interest groups that believe they are so powerful that they can change the nature of law on this island by pressuring politicians to act , create an anti-democratic and polarising atmosphere. They believed they are being denied something but ending life for no reason has never been and never will be an entitlement or a right.
They don’t want balance or compassion, they want unjust entitlements that serve nobody.
@: So enlighten us all as to why you place so much more value on a foetus conceived through consensual intercourse than one conceived through rape or incest ? I mean according to you lot all life is sacred yet here you are without a second thought willing to snuff out one simply because of the way it was conceived.. “no questions” , yet without knowing the slightest thing about the circumstances of the woman carrying the foetus conceived through consensual sex she must carry it to term because not to do so would be murder. Do you carry that forward and think that people born through rape and incest are less worthy of life ? Don’t get me wrong here I’m just trying to get into the mindset of people who on one hand would throw a woman in prison for having an abortion as “all life is sacred” yet on the other hand would abort what according to them is “an innocent baby” no questions asked. I guess those sluts must be punished huh ?
I reckon Leo & Co came clean from the start and told people what their proposed legislation would be so the waters wouldn’t be muddied with outlandish claims that they’ll keep liberalising abortion legislation. If this does not pass and there are even rumblings of a second referendum, they’ll be accused of not respecting the peoples choice. Plus we know the majority of the No side would not accept or trust the government to keep legislation to the ‘hard cases’ if it was proposed.
@Vigo The Carpathian: I appreciate your debate if it is in that spirit but I think you’re painting me as a right-winger here. I’m left in most other aspects of my political economic and social protection views. I’m just expressing a slightly off centre but nuanced view that doesn’t get heard often because neither side seems to tolerate pluralism in their ranks. I’ve had one commenter infer that I was a homophobe, and you seem to be inferring that I’m misogynistic. I am neither.
If it came down to a choice between the life of a mother vs an unborn, of course I’m going to chose the mother. It is entirely possible to legislate for all tragic situations (with sufficient flexibility) and enact better social protection legislation. There is a 17,000 page tax code in the UK for the sole purpose of regulating how a citizen’s money is taken from them. It’s a case of can’t do/won’t do by our Tory government. Most social change only happens because it suits the powers that be.
By the way, on the topic of inequalities, if we are talking about vulnerable groups having their life chances limited by society and government, then what does abortion constitute? I can’t justify ending the life of a foetus only for the fact that it was inconvenient. I honestly do have sympathy for those who experience crisis pregnancies but I think they can be sufficiently provided for without abortion. That was the only aspect of the bill I’m against.
@: The gov can categorically state anything – then a new government is elected and they can do whatever they want.
Fact.
@HelloGoogleTracking..: so if Sinn Fein get into power a second referendum might possibly maybe be called? Fianna Fáil certainly don’t have the appetite to rerun this and Fine Gael have said they won’t.
No side are really sinking to a new low. We won’t be fooled.
Did she actually state what was factually incorrect or is this just more whinging from her? It’s embarrassing at this stage. Did the Journal ask her what she thought of her leader’s threat to imprison Irish women if the outcome is not a Yes?
Noone an impartial chair? Fools no one.
@Eric De Red: you don’t seem to be able to differentiate between chairing according to the rules and being a politician with a conscience. She did a good, patient and fair job and was acknowledged by all sides. Well those that kept their toys in the pram.
@Gulliver Foyle:
It was certainly not acknowledged by the No side – only the Yes side did as she was extremely biased in their favour.
Yesterday it was Leo threatening to lock people up ,to day we have catherine the great dismissing the truth as lies .great bedfellows .two idiots who wish for nothing short of abortion on demand ,now their is real compassion for you .the mass slaughter of the innocence to appease their warpt political ideology
@Anthony Gallagher: Dude, the no side pushing themselves as some sort of government body is wrong. She’s calling the no side out. Like the no side should if the yes side do something wrong. So seriously just stop.
@Anthony Gallagher: Do you think that women who have an abortion here should be prosecuted or not or not ? He stated the laws as they stand and will stand unless the 8th is repealed.
@Nathan Hayes: You’re accusing the no side as pushing themselves as some sort of government body (for handing out booklets) when in fact it’s the actual government who are pushing the yes side along with the looney left and washed up Senators such as Noone. You’re hilarious.
@Dj: The government are the ones who called the referendum. They’re not misrepresenting themselves and are under no obligation what so ever to be neutral. The only one’s required to be neutral in all of this are the Independent Electoral Commission.
@Nathan Hayes: speaking of government No voters, have FG published numbers yet on the number of their TDs who will vote no? In FF it’s about 50% apparently. I would expect that FG would also be high despite the Leo Noone abortion or we will imprison women diktat.
@Nathan Hayes: lol at Nathan calling everyone dude
@Vigo The Carpathian: the govt consists of ELECTED tds, who are there ( unless they have changed the system) to represent their electorate not the party whip. If they were proper national legislatures representing common good they would be more plausible. But when lobbyist and vested interest come first everytime they lose respect. The billions to banks, the tax write offs to apples etc would provide great childcare and supports to those contemplating aborting viable healthy babies because of lack of supports. The fail has inbuilt creche facilities and supports so where is the great finegael s equality going to kick in. Abortion on demand is the cheaper option.
@mur:
The whip system undermines the basic concept of parliamentary democracy.
With a whip system in place – it literally does not matter who you elect as your TD – they are instructed how to vote.
@Vigo The Carpathian: and who gave Leo the right to decide what laws should and shouldn’t be broken . Delay on cervical smear scans cost lives, no one charged, hard falsified and wrongly convicted people, no charges. So why is it mandatory for him to imprison women for taking tablets. He cannot deal with the heroin/ cocaine epidemic so he proposes legislating to legalise that crime. He legalised sodomy to suit a minority. He will have to get a more convincing argument as his actions on law and order are hollow so far.
The no side have no points. Irish women and people are used to fight for the Catholic agenda around the world. Thats why the 8th was enshrined as they saw the country as a soft point and it was – they thought Ireland will spread their pro life dogma, but it didnt work out as planned because other countries were never gripped by religion to such an extent. No other country would allow this to happen to their women and they dont – well maybe a few, the Philippines? This has never really been about abortion but was meant not to allow the right wing “moral” disappear in oblivion. Sorry for all women, even the brainwashed ones because they cant see how they are used for the political gain of fundamentalists. Once you tell people a ie for too long, they start to believe it. Let them try this in France – will never pass. So you can cheer and shout all you want while you are simply used for someone’s political/religious gain. This amendment will be gone sooner or later, it is not a question if but when.
@Marie McCormack: lol
@Marie McCormack: Starts off with “The No side have no points” while continuing on with one long paragraph of absolute waffle. Other countries were never gripped by religion to such an extent? Travel to the middle east. People are being killed there in numerous countries on a daily basis because of religion. Sorry for all women, even the brainwashed ones? So any woman who disagrees with you is brainwashed is it? And you have the gall to say these women have no points?!!!!
@Dj: couldn’t agree more. Meandering nonsensical post. Once you see “No side have no points”, “religion”, “dogma” you can dismiss the post and poster outright. Unaccepting of others’ viewpoints, dismissive and arrogant.
@Marie McCormack: Another one who thinks it’s a simplistic religion vs everyone else scenario. You don’t have to be religious to object to the deliberate destruction of human life. I should know I’m not religious and I’m voting no.
@Rachel O’ Meara: I’m very Catholic and I’m voting repeal because I choose to trust my fellow man/woman and think my religious beliefs have absolutely no place in the constitution of our country. It’s easy to think you are right and have all the answers but you know what, you don’t.
@Larry Doyle: you’ve just made Rachel’s point for her Larry. Marie thinks that Catholics are all voting No because of religious “dogma”. You’ve just proved what we all know, most of us know, and that is that this is not the case.
@Larry Doyle: Thanks Larry, case in point.
@Marie McCormack: the no side have been slamming the institution of the church for getting the church is mainly made up of individuals who hold human life above that of our institutions, church and state, and want to protect as far as possible both life’s of mother and child. They are not the enemy, it’s those atheist and others who value nothing but themselves and their liberal agenda.
This is the third article I’ve read about this booklet and no image of it. Any chance of including a picture with the article so we can form our own opinion?
@Matt Connolly: no chance. TheJournal.ie would be exposed
For biased untrustworthy news outlet it is.
They’ll have some dodgy fact-check out soon enough with Peter Boylan clarifying everything.
@Matt Connolly:
That would miss the point – the point is mud slinging to disenfranchise and control the narrative – stop people accessing the facts.
Fact = repeal removes all human rights from unborn children, specifically to allow abortion on demand
Fact = Once removed, the people do not need to be consulted again by referendum, and will not have a say in the details of the legislation.
Fact = Repeal will mean abortion on demand
Fact = Repeal will allow abortions up to 6 month – however this already exists, for threats to mothers life. The change is, it will now allow it on grounds on “mental health” defined as “serious” – and doctors have stated they will allow the woman to judge this herself = abortion up to 6 months on the grounds most abortions happen in the UK.
Fact = Repeal means sanctioning the death of healthy unborn children – for any reason, even the most flippant.
@HelloGoogleTracking..: fact abortion on demand will help employers avoid maternity leave etc.
Finegael will always strive to maximise employer profits at any human cost.
Good on her. She’s calling out BS, just like the no side should If the yes do something wrong.
@Nathan Hayes:
What specific BS did she call out – please enlighten us – because she was vague and accusatory without substance.
The repeal does remove the right to life from unborn humans – removing a human right to allow killing for any reason – fact.
Clutching at straws now and licking her wounds after the debate.
Typical libero-fascist bs from the anything but ‘liberal’ loony left side, who when exposed in a calm, clear, concise manner decide to cry foul…boo hoo they jeered at us.. boo hoo they put up photos of dismembered babies that’s terrible so it is, let’s crack on with the actual dismemberment, but God forbid anyone put the dismembered babies on a poster
When voting go with what your inner self is telling you .
@Elvis Polkasalad: Repeal it is so. You are right, who are we to think our opinions are more important than the right of of a pregnant woman to choose what to do with her body? Thanks for the advice, I’ll be thinking of you on Friday week.
@Larry Doyle: then there are those of us who believe that abortion on demand, willfully taking life for social reasons (97% of abortions in UK) is morally wrong so will be voting No.
Glad FFG never attempt to blur the lines and fool voters ;-)
It’s a well presented and professional looking booklet.
Can the good senator point out the factual errors in the booklet or only criticise its tone?
@retainthe8th: it’s just a fashion statement, she is raging it mimics govt copy.
Her true colours are showing, her impartiality as chairwoman of 8th amendment committee breathtaking.
Can someone tell me what the deal with the “abortion at 6 months“ posters are about? Confused as fū¢ķ about it. Thanks.
@Drew P. Baulsach: that would be LoveBoat scaremongering/outright lies
@Drew P. Baulsach: I reckon research it as much as possible. You’ll get a deluge of answers here.
@Drew P. Baulsach: the referendum commission will be a good resource https://www.refcom.ie/
@Drew P. Baulsach: Abortion will be allowed in certain cases of ffa and mental health grounds or where their is a risk to the life of the mother up to six months. In other words the hard cases, everyone else will be up to three months with a 72 hour waiting period between asking for an abortion and actually getting one.
@Rachel O’ Meara: Yes absolutely. These are the same grounds used to justify the majority of abortions in the UK.
@Drew P. Baulsach: from what research I have done myself it seems that the only way in which abortion will happen is in cases of FFA .. I think there is something about if the mother’s life is in critical danger .. but as was said its best to do some research of your own .. just be careful as there are alot of fact websites set up to push those who haven’t already made up there mind in certain direction
@Kelly Keane: abortion for 12 weeks to 24 will be allowed in the same circumstances as the UK…. where no abortion is denied and all excuses are signed off on
@Eric De Red: Dude seriously, it’s a choice, that neither you or I get to make, so quiet down and watch the football.
@Drew P. Baulsach: go with what your inner soul tells you to do ,
@Kelly Keane: need to do your research there Kelly.
@Kelly Keane: Kelly abortion is already allowed for where the mothers life is deemed to be in danger.
Twenty five abortions were carried out in 2016. Out of those one was carried out because of mental health grounds the rest because of risk to the mothers health.
@Nathan Hayes: so your another idiot that thinks a father of the unborn child should just shut his mouth , another student with no brains, what rights do you think a father will have if all the rights are giving to the mother . the unborn child is my baby too, you must not have children
@Elvis Polkasalad: They say they want equality and don’t get me wrong it’s a great thing to want but that’s not what they’re asking for which tbph is one of my many problems with their side.
@Elvis Polkasalad: Love your comment man, you cry ‘woe is the man! woe is the unborn child!’ But say nothing caring about the mother.
@Eric De Red: Hardly.. those provisions exist as the law here stands at the moment. In fact right now there is no cut off point at all as to when a pregnancy can be terminated if the panel needed to approve an abortion judge that continuing the pregnancy is a danger to the woman’s life.The problem is that a woman needs to convince an obstetrician, a psychiatrist with experience treating women during or after pregnancy, another general psychiatrist and her GP that her life is in danger and given the time frame that’s not an easy threshold to reach.The “6 months” is red herring by the No campaign. On a side note if the 8th isn’t repealed I can see a situation where people in those professions sympathetic to the plight of women start coming together to rubber stamp such terminations leaving the No side with not only abortion on demand but abortion on demand with no limits..
@A Piece of Chalk: Can you tell of any other political leader who threatens the voters with jail if they don’t vote the right way ! or maybe telling the electorate to woman-up or man-up !.
The last time politicians encouraged the population to grant entitlements defying their constitution for extermination policies using dehumanising language was in the 1930′s when they suspended the Weimer constitution. For a citizen to give up their influence to interest groups is an assault on the eyes and hard to believe people would choose to do so.
@Kelly Keane: your research was pretty damn limited if that’s what you came back with.
We are voting to remove the equal right to life of mother and baby and replace with terminations being allowed by legislation.
The Heads of bill being released are one of the most liberal in Europe, far more liberal than UK.
Abortion to 24 weeks for any reason and to birth In certain circumstances.
About 4000 abortions annually now expect to rise to 16000 based on trends across all Europe following introduction of terminations.
@eric nelligan: That’s bulls#it. The proposed legislation is nowhere near as liberal as the UK. Twelve weeks on demand and an interview with a medical panel of two psychiatrists and an Obgyn and a GP for anything after that. They’d march on the streets in the UK is they tried to introduce that there..
@Dave O Keeffe: I think that most politicians are corrupt but not in this case?.
Corruption has no morals or bounds.
@Rachel O’ Meara: cheers Rachel.
@Kelly Keane: I’ve made up my mind alright, just wasn’t sure what the posters were about. Yeah some dodgy sites out there alright!
Last minute mud-slinging headline for all newspapers:
YES SIDE SLAM NO SIDE DIRTY TACTICS
NO SIDE SLAM YES DIRTY TACTICS
That’ll sway the undecided to place unmarked ballot papers into the boxes.
“The document states that a Yes vote would mean “unborn babies at all stages of pregnancy will have no constitutional rights” and that voters “will never have a say on this again”.” That’s very true, what is wrong with that?
News just in – there are going to be four additional options added below Yes and No on the ballot paper. After much consultation these include “Can’t someone else decide, what is the question again, I’ll have what she’s having and Definitely Maybe”
This vote could go either way when you see politicians hitting out.
@@mdmak33: We are at the stage now people will say anything for people to vote their way…
This is sweet coming from the party of spin and untruths and broken promises
Is it too much to ask for an intelligent debate? I guess it’s asking a bit too much from this shower!
All we are going to do is give a Yes or No on changing the constitution… But they will have the final word not you. Could swing for or. Against abortion or even get more strict… Do you know for sure what will be the outcome if a yes wins?
In other news, ProLife Booklet said in a response that Catherine Noone is an attempt to fool voters
I saw an ad in one of last weekend’s papers too from the no side and it was very much like a government ad. Same colours used etc. It was an intentional and underhanded attempt by the no side to persuade undecided voters.
I notice Save the 8th have neglected to mention that ‘Becky’ one of their head honchos in Cork is a convicted drink driver. Not that I don’t believe in second chances, but it does seem a bit odd that a side who waffle on about killing would use as such a prominent spokesperson , someone who actively put lives at risk a few years ago. For that matter could Abigail be up front about which of the religious fundamentalist organisations that ran the no campaign she was involved in? If this wasn’t about religion (yeah right!) then why are these spuccers so coy about their true affiliations?
have your say