The Irish Parliament begins Debate on Bill that will Provide Limited Access to Abortion

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 22nd, 2012

Week in Review

Representative government transferred the power from the privileged few to the people.  And once they did things got better for the people.  Because the government started serving the people instead of the people serving the government.  And to keep it that way representative governments introduced separations of powers.  And checks and balances.  They created legislative bodies to write laws.  Where legislators represented the people in proportion to the population.  So laws represented the will of the people.  And not minority interests. 

Of course, this made it difficult to pass some laws.  Especially those that went against the will of the people.  So some found a way to get around the will of the people.  By legislating from the bench.  Where instead of needing a majority of hundreds of legislators you only needed a majority of a handful of judges.  Which has been the legislative tool of choice for liberals to write laws.  Using the judiciary to write law that they could not write in the legislature.  Violating the separation of powers.  And going against the will of the people.  Such as making abortion legal in countries where the majority oppose it.  Like the United States.  And Ireland (see Ireland Takes Up Bill on Abortion Access by DOUGLAS DALBY posted 4/18/2012 on The New York Times).

One of the most deeply divisive issues in Irish society was reignited Wednesday night when the Irish Parliament began debate on a bill that would provide for limited access to abortion.

As in the United States, it was the Supreme Court here that legalized abortion, although in strictly limited circumstances. But in the 20 years since the decision in the “X Case,” successive governments have shied away from enacting the legislation needed to carry out the order…

“We believe that it is only a first step for abortion to be legalized in Ireland in all circumstances. We have waited long enough,” Ms. Daly said. “Over 100,000 Irish abortions have taken place in Britain for many different reasons, none of them easy, all of them valid. The hypocrisy, injustice and expense of having to travel to England for terminations, away from family and friends, is a disgrace.”

But in this conservative and Catholic nation, sentiment against abortion runs strong, and over the past few months anti-abortion groups have been pressuring politicians to oppose the bill, and are confident it will be defeated.

Governments shy away from putting abortion in the hands of the legislature.  Especially in countries with large Catholic populations.  Which is why there are no abortion laws on the books in the U.S. or Ireland.  Just Supreme Court rulings that created an abortion law from the bench.  As Supreme Court justices typically serve for life they don’t have to worry about the political fallout of their decisions.  Which gives some a green light for judicial activism.  Giving them leeway to disagree with laws they don’t like.  Or creating laws they like that the people don’t.  They can do this.  Legislators can’t.  Which is why they shy away from abortion law.  Because a legislator usually has another election to try to win.  And that isn’t easy to do when you go against the will of the people.  As many found out in the U.S. after they voted for Obamacare.  And lost their jobs in the 2010 midterm elections.  Because they not only acted against the will of the people but against their own constituents.

Ireland is a Catholic country.  And they take their Catholicism pretty seriously.  Which is why so many Irish hate the English.  Who are Protestant.  If you’re not familiar with this history read up a little on it.  Perhaps looking up some names like Elizabeth I, James I or the Earl of Stafford.  Then you’ll get a feeling for the love between Irish Catholics and English Protestants.  So the Irish are Catholic.  And fiercely so.  They stay true to their Catholic beliefs.  Which includes an absolute opposition to abortion.  Which is why there is no abortion law in Ireland.  Only a Supreme Court decision.  Until now, perhaps.  As the Irish legislature is now debating this subject.  What will the Irish Catholic do?   Whatever they do one thing is for certain.  It won’t make the issue any less divisive.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Despite Strict Abortion Laws some UK Doctors provided Abortions for Women who didn’t Like the Sex of their Fetus

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 25th, 2012

Week in Review

The UK has law governing abortion.  Unlike the US.  Who has no law on the books.  Well, there were many laws on the books in the several states.  But Roe v. Wade made these moot.  Perhaps the most contentious Supreme Court ruling of all time.  And what many call legislating from the bench.  For this decision didn’t interpret law.  It made new law.  For there was no law on the federal register to interpret.  And that’s how abortions became legal in the United States.  Whereas the UK actually debated the issue.  And used their legislative body to write it into low.  A novel use of the legislature.  Legislating.

Roe v. Wade was based on an abortion that never was.  The ‘Jane Roe’ in Roe v. Wade was Norma McCorvey.  Who had her baby and gave it up for adoption.  Converted to Catholicism in later life.  And became pro-life.  She regrets her part in Roe v. Wade.  And now works to overturn that decision.  The only ‘law’ on the books for abortion in America.  Granting full access to abortion without any legislative debate whatsoever.  Which they probably didn’t want.  For they did have that debate in the UK.  And their law placed some restrictions on abortion (see Abortion forms being ‘pre-signed’ by Press Association posted 3/23/2012 on the guardian).

Spot checks at more than 250 abortion clinics this week found evidence of blank forms being signed in anticipation of patients seeking a termination.

The law states that, except in emergencies, two doctors must agree for a woman to have an abortion.

Although doctors do not have to see the woman in person, they must certify that they are aware of her circumstances and why she wants to go ahead with the procedure…

The news comes after a Daily Telegraph investigation last month uncovered allegations that doctors at three clinics had agreed to terminations based on the sex of the baby.

The General Medical Council (GMC) has suspended or placed restrictions on these doctors and the claims are being investigated by the Metropolitan police, Greater Manchester police and West Midlands police…

In the UK, abortions are allowed on certain grounds, including that continuing with the pregnancy would be a greater risk to the woman’s life, physical or mental health than ending the pregnancy, continuing would be more of a risk to the physical or mental health of any of the woman’s existing children and there is a real risk the child would have a serious physical or mental disability.

Apparently China isn’t the only nation that has aborted a pregnancy based on the sex of their baby.  This is perhaps the greatest concern to those on the pro-life side of the argument.  This selective breeding.  Just how far will people go in making their decisions in terminating their pregnancies?  An identified birth defect?  The sex of the baby?  The color of their hair (some kids pick on redheads in school).  If the fetus shows an obesity gene?  A short gene?  A premature bald gene?  An ugly gene?  A homosexual gene?  Just how far will parents go to have ‘perfect’ children?

Even an atheist has to admit this is getting too much like playing God.  A lot of women making these decisions are not in the best frame of mind.  A lot of them are young, too.  Who will have a lifetime ahead of them to think about this decision.  Which is why the British require counseling.  Because some women may change their mind.  Like Norma McCorvey did.  And if you do that would be a terrible thing to have to live with.

Often when it comes to an unwanted pregnancy the choice is to destroy a women’s life now by having a baby that she is ill-prepared to raise.  Or ruin her life later as she dwells on what she did when she was ill-prepared to raise a child.  Some may be burdened by this in later life.  Some may not.  But most would agree that they would much rather not ever be in the position to have to make this decision. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,