Thread by @Lawyers4Choice

Let's have a look at that No faux-official booklet, shall we? #debunking4yes

Find the text here: imgur.com/a/Y2EvaBM

"The 8th is the only place where unborn babies have constitutional rights."

The 8th is the only place where explicit rights, ie the right to life, are granted to foetuses. The M v MJELR case says that there are no other provision applying to foetuses in the Constitution but... >

> as Mr CJ Keane points out in today's Times, and indeed the Court in M do also, there is an interest and a value in the existence of a foetus due to its potential to become a living person, and that value should be reflected in law.

I can't bold, so all-caps will have to do: "gives the Oireachtas TOTAL CONTROL TO MAKE LAWS on abortion... WITHOUT THE NEED TO REFER TO THE PEOPLE..."

Got some news. Art. 15.2 of the Constitution gives the Oireachtas TOTAL CONTROL to make laws already on everything else. >

> and yes, if something isn't Constitutionally enshrined, it doesn't require a referendum, but you know who creates the Oireachtas. THE PEOPLE. And we're referred to regularly in general elections to form the Oireachtas.

Right. Onward. "If you repeal the 8th, this Bill [meaning the draft legislation] will be enacted as the law of the land."

No. If we repeal the 8th, the PLPDA will stay the law of the land and the Oireachtas will have to consider and debate any new legislation.

"This Bill transfers control of regulating abortion from the Constitution to the Oireachtas..."

No it doesn't. The Oireachtas makes the law. The 8th is a barrier to them going any further that its provisions, but the Constitution does not "regulate abortion".

I despair of this writer knowing about the separation of powers given that they obviously haven't read the Constitution, but basically: go read Article 15.2 and 15.4 and get back to me.

"Abortion will be legal for ANY REASON up to 12wks."

Yes. Bringing us in line with our international peers and getting us to conform to our human rights obligations.

"If it's inconvenient, if it's a girl and not a boy, if the timing is wrong..."

If you've been raped, if your partner is abusive, if you're on vital medication contra-indicated for pregnancy...

If you're not an illogical misogynist you'll think of those too.

"Abortion up to 6 MONTHS on vague "health" grounds."

No. On the agreement of two doctors that there is a risk to the life or serious harm to the health of the pregnant person. It's not vague. It puts the power of medical decisions in the hands of medical professionals.

Bolding theirs, of course: "PERFECTLY HEALTHY BABIES CAN BE ABORTED ON THESE GROUNDS."

Yes, because PERFECTLY HEALTHY WOMEN (& other people) CAN BE KILLED by prioritising a foetus over them due to doctors' fear of 14 years in jail.

By the way. whether the foetus has developed non-fatal anomalies or not is irrelevant here because the draft law focuses, as it should, on prioritising the pregnant person. The restriction & need for medical sign-off is to protect the interests of the foetus (see Keane CJ again)

"Repealing The 8th Amendment Removes All Constitutional Rights From The Unborn."

Lawyers For Choice Still Repeating That Lawmakers Consider There To Be An Interest In Foetal Existence And Will Legislate Accordingly, Like Everywhere Else.

"If you abolish the 8th politicians will have a blank cheque to introduce even more liberal laws WITHOUT CONSULTING THE PEOPLE."

Or to leave the PLDPA in operation and do nothing. This fear works both ways. You know how THE PEOPLE are CONSULTED? Say it with me: elections.

Like, if you don't like the new legislation? Elect a TD who'll try to amend it. Either way. This is how democracy works, although I will admit it seems to be a strange concept to some parties in this debate.

"Unborn babies at all stages during pregnancy will have no constitutional rights, and YOU WILL NEVER HAVE A SAY ON THIS AGAIN."

The second half of this is... literally not how *anything* works. How do you think the 8th got in there in the first place? We hold referendums!

There is nothing stopping a future government trying to bring in another referendum on this. Nothing in the Constitutional text says the legal equivalent of 'no take-backs'.

How long is this thing? It's starting to feel like a Hydra of absurdity.

Okay. Consequences of a No vote. Too much bold to caps.

"You retain the power to decide such matters in the future..." No, you don't. You get to elect politicians and they get to make the law, except they're bounded by the Constitution and therefore powerless beyond that.

"Abortion on demand will not be legalised..."

... sorry, migrants, rape survivors, people in disadvantaged circumstances...

"...and late term abortions will not be carried out in this country"

Except under the PLDPA if necessary to save someone's life. Like right now.

"Both mother AND baby will continue to be protected..."

That's great comfort to Ms' X, Y, A B & C, D, P, Michelle Harte, Savita, and everyone else who's been 'protected'. Also, full personhood for babies inheres at birth. You're thinking of foetuses.

"Abortion clinics will not open in Ireland and we will protect vulnerable women and children with disabilities from the abortion industry."

What does ANY of that mean? Abortions can be provided in existing medical facilities. And the "abortion industry" is a new one.

For "children with disabilities" read "foetuses developing abnormally", I'm guessing, because currently children with disabilities who become pregnant as a result of sexual abuse have to get the ferry like everyone else.

The "Plan for Life" on the next page has some good ideas that should be policy - free childcare, financial support - and some that are irrelevant - "a new state adoption agency". However, nothing helps someone who's pregnant and doesn't want to be.

"The new legislation proposed by the government is almost identical to the Abortion Act 1967 in force in the UK."

1) no it's not: health.gov.ie/wp-content/upl…
2) seriously, it's not: legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/…
3) it's not in force in NI, so "Britain".

"90% of all babies with Down syndrome are aborted."

No they're not, please see here: thejournal.ie/factcheck-babi…

And for goodness sake, stop using people with Ds as your argument when you've been specifically asked not to by Down Syndrome Ireland.

"The number of abortions 'skyrocketed' in the 5 years post-67 Act."

No, all we can say is that the number of safe, legal abortions rose in those years. We don't know how many people sought unsafe means before that.

Btw, abortion rates in England and Wales in the last decade or so are declining or holding steady: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

The next page is about cancer treatment in pregnancy. It says that a doctor can immediately start chemo on a person diagnosed with cancer then adds "while also doing everything possible to also save the life of her baby."

Better than a doctor weigh in here, but >

> afaik, harming the foetus would mean that such a treatment couldn't be used, ergo that qualifying and (revealingly) non-bolded clause contradicts the rest of the page.

Next page is "What doctors say". I'm not a doctor, but I can get you about 1300 people who are: togetherforyes.ie/doctors/

Oh lads! Last page! I wasn't sure we'd make it.

"Abortion is NOT healthcare" is the headline.

"Yes it is" says the World Health Organisation who.int/reproductivehe…

"Ireland is one of the safest places in the world..."

I'm going to just point you to this post where I've already laid out the figures on this: aisghair.wordpress.com/2017/03/04/fac…

"Top Irish obstetricians testified that pregnant women received ANY life-saving treatment they needed..."

Have we all just forgotten Savita's case? cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2013/06/…

Plus: pregnant people have more rights than just bare existence. Not being dead shouldn't be the standard.

"In England 90% of all abortions are performed on healthy mothers, ending the lives of healthy babies."

Okay. Deep breath.

In 2016 97% of abortions in the UK were performed under Ground C of the Dept of Health's HSA1 form, which states...

it's permissable if "the pregnancy has NOT exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman"

Can you describe "going to the doctor, scared, on the brink of your health being harmed" as "healthy"? How much empathy do you have to lack to do so?

And lastly, "the lives of healthy babies", or "existence of normally-developing foetuses". There is no grounding for this. None. I can't stress that enough. Why? 2% of abortions in England and Wales in 2016 were specifically on the grounds of foetal anomaly. >

That's Ground E of your HSA1. The rest were performed specifically for reasons involving the pregnant person, not the foetus. 92% of abortions were carried out under 13wks, which is too early to know whether or not the foetus has many anomalies.

There's no grounding for claiming that all of those foetuses would have developed and come to term as "healthy babies"; it's pure surmising.

My stats are from here, btw: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl… from June 2017

I'm now searching for whom to give credit for this fictional masterpiece...

Found it! I'm going to attach the picture I cropped here because this is beyond belief. See that last line of tiny text? That's the only indication that this was written by anti-choice lobby groups, not official sources.

And that's that. Hope it helped.