I know someone who was with the Pro-Choice demonstration and apparantly a priest came over and started sprinkling holy water on them to cast out the devil. They thought it was hilarious.
For anyone who didn't hear the news yesterday;
It's a pity the judge kinda copped-out and didn't deal more thoroughly with the whole issue. He differentiated the case on the basis that the foetus had no chance of survival, so it wasn't really a proper abortion. So all this case has shown is that the baby must have no chance of survival beyond a few days. What if its chances of survival are, say, 5% for the first few months and 1% thereafter? Do you balance the pain and suffering of the mother and potential harm to her or just flat out deny her the opportunity of abortion? Presumably the latter still.Court rules 'Miss D' can travel to UK for abortion
The High Court yesterday granted a 17-year-old girl carrying a foetus that would not live more than three days outside the womb the right to travel to the UK for an abortion. Mary Carolan and Carl O'Brien report.
Mr Justice Liam McKechnie said he "firmly and unequivocally" held the view that there was no law or constitutional impediment preventing the girl - identified only as "Miss D" - travelling for the purpose of terminating her pregnancy.
He sharply criticised the actions of the Health Service Executive (HSE) in dealing with Miss D's situation, while praising the girl's maturity in confronting her dilemma.
The HSE had initially told Miss D she could not travel for an abortion without its consent and she could be restrained, by force if necessary, if she tried. This claim was not pursued during the court hearing.
The actions of a HSE social worker in telling gardaí that Miss D must be prevented from travelling were without foundation in law, the judge said.
Furthermore, the HSE never sought to establish what course of action was in her best interests. Instead, it sought to "shoehorn" the girl into an X-case-type situation, although there was no evidence she was ever suicidal.
This case, he stressed, was about the right to travel. It was "not about abortion" or about a decision to terminate the existence of a healthy foetus or a disabled child.
Miss D, who is 18 weeks pregnant and from the Leinster region, had shown "courage, integrity and maturity" in dealing with her plight, said the judge.
The girl was not in court yesterday, although her solicitor said afterwards she was "very pleased" with the ruling. Her mother, who was in court, said she was delighted on her daughter's behalf.
The HSE last night said it accepted the ruling, but emphasised it had taken what it believed to be the correct course of action. A spokeswoman said the HSE had always considered a court order was necessary for the girl to travel abroad.
"The HSE regrets any distress arising for Miss D and her family. The matters at issue were not straightforward or simple in ascertaining this girl's best interests. The HSE will continue to offer Miss D all the care and support which it is in a position to make available," the spokeswoman said.
The ruling has averted a fresh political or constitutional crisis over abortion, but it has thrown into doubt the HSE's authority to take the role of parent on behalf of hundreds of children who are the subject of interim care orders.
The Irish Times understands senior HSE officials are deeply concerned about the impact of the ruling for other children in care. It has not yet ruled out appealing at least some of yesterday's judgment.
There were contrasting reactions to the ruling from anti-abortion protesters and pro-choice groups, who staged rival demonstrations outside the court yesterday.
The Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) and the Alliance for Choice group said the teenager should not have had to endure a protracted court hearing.
They said the lack of a proper legal framework on abortion in Ireland meant other cases involving women in crisis pregnancy situations will inevitably come before the courts.
However, Dr Berry Kiely of the Pro-Life Campaign said the public could not ignore the fact that abortion involved the taking of an innocent human life.
"This tragic case also reminds us of the urgent obligation on society to ensure that every possible support is put in place so that no woman feels abortion is the only option open to her."
The HSE is to pay the costs of Miss D and her mother in the legal actions in both the District and High Courts. Total costs are estimated at up to €1 million.
Overall, it was much ado about nothing, only serving to highlight the stupidity of someone in the HSE who couldn't see what the girl's best interest was.
I know someone who was with the Pro-Choice demonstration and apparantly a priest came over and started sprinkling holy water on them to cast out the devil. They thought it was hilarious.
TO TELL THE TRUTH IS REVOLUTIONARY
The ONLY foot.ie user with a type of logic named after them!
All of this has happened before. All of it will happen again.
Think the issue was that he/she (dunno what judge it was) couldn't deal with it more succintly as the legislation isn't there in the first placeOriginally Posted by kingdom hoop
54,321 sold - wws will never die - ***
---
New blog if anyone's interested - http://loihistory.wordpress.com/
LOI section on balls.ie - http://balls.ie/league-of-ireland/
I think he is still free to explore the area, but given how polemical the issue is I suppose it's hard to blame him for that. It's just that abortion cases don't come around too often so some dictum would have been insightful.
bill hicks comes to mind.....another little miracle!
This one?bill hicks comes to mind.....another little miracle!
Quality sketch and a great punchline
There were also the time constraints on the girl - would hardly have been fair to her to be caught up in a test case just for the sake of it. Bottom line is that there needs to be legislation for things as they stand now, perhaps even for a constitutional amendment to allow for the issue to be dealt with totally in legislation?
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
I think the politicians are the cowards as they (all of them) continue to ignore the issue leaving the judiciary to rule on.
Interesting that the Judge criticised the HSE for bring the case up in the first place. I think it was the fault of maybe one individual & not the HSE organisation?
I thought the X case established the right to travel so this case seems to have been pointless from the start?
I've read (don't assume this is right - anyone know better?) that the distinction is that she's a juvenile.I thought the X case established the right to travel so this case seems to have been pointless from the start?
You can't spell failure without FAI
Yeah, very true. It's not really the judge's place to have deal with an issue if such magnitude - crossing the Rubicon and all that. Maybe after the election we can have another debate.
Very costly for the HSE; to say one million euros could have been better spent comes close to understatement of the month.
I'd imagine so. HSE is in locus parentis so they have to protect her from doing anything wrong, whereas if it was an adult they would be responsible for their own actions.
I know she is u-18 but does it make any difference she is 17? i.e. >16
All in all a sorry mess so hopefully the girl can move on out of the public spotlight.
Anyone see the picture of the banner in yesterday's papers: 'Keep your rosaries away from my ovaries'
Last edited by Raheny Red; 11/05/2007 at 8:49 AM.
Who Cares?!
tx dodge
as i said before gods little miracles, one and all
interesting that the judge decided the right to travel trumps the right to life.
the girl was entitled to get scraped out, but a ridicilously activist decision from the judge. good result, wrong reasons.
What are ya on about?
The reason he gave was that there was effectively no life being terminated.
And it's ridicUlous, sheeesh.
Judge says D case is about right to travelWhat are ya on about?
The reason he gave was that there was effectively no life being terminated.
And it's ridicUlous, sheeesh.
Last edited by OhNoYouDidn't; 11/05/2007 at 7:37 PM.
Well yeah, fair enough it was about the right to travel, but that's because it wasn't really an abortion case. Not that the right to travel trumped the right to life as your post said.
FFS- you could have put it mildly tbh!
Who Cares?!
Says the man who tries to disguise his vulgarity with acronymsFFS
Since the thread has been reduced to a level I'd expect from adolescents, I reckon it's time to close it. Well done children, you must be very proud of yourselves.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks